Question regarding DR 09-0216

[Innovimax SARL]

Rex,

Correct me if I'm wrong but the objection Murata and I did are not incorporated.

(I'm just restating this because Shawn answer disturbed me a bit...)

Mohamed

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Rex Jaeschke<rex at rexjaeschke.com> wrote:
> I show email traffic (see below) based on my proposed response, but no
> record of agreement on the final words after that. Did I miss something, or
> do we still need final words?
>
> Rex
>
> 1.      DR 09-0216 — WML: Custom XML and Smart Tags
>
> Status: Closed; will be incorporated in COR1
>
> Subject: WML: Custom XML and Smart Tags
>
> Qualifier: Request for clarification
>
> Submitter: Mr. Francis Cave (BSI)
>
> Contact Information: francis at franciscave.com
>
> Submitter’s Defect Number: 08-00131
>
> Supporting Document(s): none
>
> Date Circulated by Secretariat: 2009-05-22
>
> Deadline for Response from Editor: 2009-07-22
>
> IS 29500 Reference(s): Part 1: §17.5.1, “Custom XML and Smart Tags”, p. 529
>
> Related DR(s): none
>
> Nature of the Defect:
>
> The second para on p. 529 following the bullets has: "The distinction
> between custom XML markup and smart tags is that custom XML markup is based
> on a specified schema."
>
> It is not clear how "a specified schema" is specified in this context. Can
> there only be one specified schema per document?
>
> Solution Proposed by the Submitter:
>
> Point to normative text describing how one or more schemas are specified, or
> - if this does not exist - provide new text.
>
> Schema Change(s) Needed:
>
> Editor’s Response:
>
> The exact changes are as follows:
>
> Part 1: §17.5, “Custom XML and Smart Tags”, p. 529
>
> The distinction between custom XML markup and smart tags is that custom XML
> markup is based on a specified schema, which shall be specified using the
> attachedSchema element (§17.15.1.5). As a result, the custom XML elements
> can be validated against the schema. Also, as shown below, custom XML markup
> can be used at the block-level as well as on the inline (run) level.
>
> 2009-06-11 Makoto Murata:
>
>>  which shall be specified using the attachedSchema element
>
> Is this a recommendation or a requirement?  In other words, is the
> attachedSchema element authoritative?
>
> 2009-06-11 Mohamed Zergaoui:
>
> I was also wondering why it is used "CAN" which is not RFC compliant.
>
> I would also go for a "MAY" ("XML elements MAY be validated") and would also
> add ("but MUST be valid with respect to the attachedSchema").



-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 €