PLEASE PROOF: Draft AMD Set 1 for 29500

[Shawn Villaron]

I actually think you just found a mistake which is easily corrected.  Thanks for reviewing things.  Rex, can you make the change on your side?

I don't think we're in a position to move information like this to Schematron at this point, although it's certainly an interesting idea for a future revision.

shawn

-----Original Message-----
From: rjelliffe at allette.com.au [mailto:rjelliffe at allette.com.au] 
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 9:08 PM
To: Rex Jaeschke
Cc: SC 34 WG4
Subject: Re: PLEASE PROOF: Draft AMD Set 1 for 29500

> Attached are the 2 Draft Technical Corrigenda (for Parts 1 and 4), 
> nearly a week ahead of schedule. Please proof them and send any 
> comments to this email list as soon as possible. The plan is to review 
> and, hopefully, close-out and approve these on the phone call of July 
> 23.

Sorry if I am missed it, but the draft Amendment seems to use only the old URIs for relationships.

For example, change 98 (p21/ PDF p32) s9.11.1 specifies extra linking relationships, but these are all in terms of old relationship identifiers.

For strict, these certain should use the new relationship URIs.*

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

* In fact, I think these constraints should be expressed in a Schematron schema and not in mere text at all, for example:


<sch:schema ....>
   ...
   <sch:phase id="strict">
      <sch:active pattern="strict-relationships" />
      ...
   </sch:phase>

   <sch:phase id="transitional">
      <sch:active pattern="transitional-relationships" />
      ...
   </sch:phase>


   <sch:pattern id="strict-relationships">
       <!-- $relsFile is a parameter of the document validation -->
       <sch:let name="relationships" value="document( $relsFile )" />

       <sch:rule context="w-s:contentPart">
           <sch:assert test=
            "$relationships//r:relationship[@id = current()/@r:id]/@type =
            'http://purl.oclc.org/ooxml/officeDocument/relationships/customXml'">
           The value of the id attribute of a contentPart element
           should specify a customXml part, according to Part 1 s9.11.1.
           </sch:assert>
       </sch:rule>

       ...
   </sch:pattern>


   <sch:pattern id="transitional-relationships">
       <!-- $relsFile is a parameter of the document validation -->
       <sch:let name="relationships" value="document( $relsFile )" />

       <sch:rule context="w-t:contentPart">
           <sch:assert test=
            "$relationships//r:relationship[@id = current()/@r:id]/@type =
            'http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocumen/2006/customXml'">
           The value of the id attribute of a contentPart element
            should specify a customXml part.
           </sch:assert>
       </sch:rule>

       ...
   </sch:pattern>


</sch:schema>