DR 09-0209: WML: Custom XML and Smart Tags

[Alex Brown]

Shawn hi

 

This proposed resolution strikes me as odd. In the original text we are
told this URI identifies a "namespace" and now this has been changed to
a "classification".

 

How is a processor to know whether this "classification" string
identifies an XML Namespace or something else (it could be a URI
identifying an ontology concept for example)? And so how can it know
whether, if exporting the smart tags as XML, it should use this URI as a
Namespace, or not?

 

Or am I missing that smart tags are in fact NOT MEANT to equate to XML
constructs (if so this might be explained in a note, since having them
specified with a w:element and a w:uri attribute makes them smell of XML
....)

 

- Alex.

 

 

From: Shawn Villaron [mailto:shawnv at microsoft.com] 
Sent: 29 May 2009 15:19
To: SC 34 WG4
Subject: DR 09-0209: WML: Custom XML and Smart Tags

 

Nature of the Defect:

The first bullet on pp. 529 has, "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."

 

What is the effect of omitting this attribute? Is the implied element
conformant to XMLNames? Is it permitted for the attribute to be
something other than a URI?

 

Also, correct, "which should identifies [sic]".

 

Here is the proposed response for this DR:

As this construct stores custom-defined semantics, it is correct (as
implied) that there is no constraint that this attribute contain a URI,
or any value whatsoever.

The exact changes are as follows:

The first of these is the namespace classification for this smart tag
(contained in the uri attribute). This optional property allows the
smart tag to specify a URI which should identifies the namespace of
string defining the classification of this smart tag to a consumer.
[Guidance: Ideally, this property is specified in the form of a URI
which identifies the namespace of this smart tag, although this is not
required. end guidance] 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 namespaceclassification.
end example]

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

 

shawn

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20090529/ff605d75/attachment.htm>