DR 09-0211: WML: Custom XML and Smart Tags

[Shawn Villaron]

Here is an update that I hope will satisfy WG4 requests on the wording for this defect report:



DR 09-0211 - WML: Custom XML and Smart Tags
Part 1, §17.5.1 will be updated as follows:
The smart tag itself carries two required pieces of information, which together contain the extra-standard semantics for this smart tag:

·         The first of these is the namespace for this smart tag (contained in the uri attribute). This allows the smart tag to specify a URI which should identifies the namespace of this smart tag to a consumer. It is intended to be used to specify a family of smart tags to which this one belongs.. [Example: In the sample above, the smart tag belongs to the http://www.example.com namespace. end example]

·         The second of these is the classification element name for this smart tag (contained in the element attribute). This attribute should specify a classification which uniquely identifies this smart tag within its family and again available to a consumer.  This allows the smart tag to specify a name which identifies this type of smart tag within its namespace and again available to a consumer. It is intended to be used to specify a unique name for this type of smart tag. [Example: In the sample above, the smart tag specifies that its data is classified as a of style stockticker. end example]





-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Jelliffe [mailto:rjelliffe at allette.com.au]
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 11:15 PM
To: Shawn Villaron
Cc: SC 34 WG4
Subject: Re: DR 09-0211: WML: Custom XML and Smart Tags



Shawn Villaron wrote:

>

> *Nature of the Defect:*

>

> ParaThe second bullet on pp. 529 has, "This allows the smart tag to

> specify a name which identifies this type of smart tag within its

> namespace and again available to a consumer."

>

> The standard should not attempt to explain the purpose of XML Element

> Type Names in normative text. Also, this sentence does not make sense.

>

> *Here is the proposed response for this DR:*

>

> The exact changes are as follows:

>

> · The second of these is the element name for this smart tag

> (contained in the element attribute). _[/Guidance/: _This allows the

> smart tag to specify a name which identifies this type of smart tag

> within its namespace and again available to a consumer. It is intended

> to be used to specify a unique name for this type of smart tag._ /end

> guidance/]_ [/Example/: In the sample above, the smart tag specifies

> that its data is of style stockticker. /end example/]

>

> I've like to suggest that we move this to LAST CALL.

>

> shawn

>

1) Is it really an "element name"?



2) Why invent new terms like "is intended to" when there is standard language "should/shall/may" etc that can help?



One of the Australian requirements accepted at the BRM was that all conformance language shall be rectified to use ISO terminology. "Is intended to" moves things backwards, it seems to me: the intended semantics of an element are surely a requirement here? This kind of unecessary vagueness "guidance" would make even the ODF TC blush :-)



Suggest: replace sentence 1 & 2 with something like "The second of these is the type name (contained in the element

attribute) which, in combination with the namespace iri, shall identify the type to which the smart tag belongs."



3) First it is called an "element", then a "type", then in the example it is called a "style". Which is it?

Suggest: in sentence 3 replace "style" with "type" (if that is indeed what is going on)



Cheers

Rick Jelliffe




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20090610/db10a9f7/attachment.htm>