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

[Rick Jelliffe]

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