stylesWithEffects / musings ?

MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) eb2m-mrt at
Fri Feb 12 14:55:23 CET 2010


> > The target namespace of each schema file does.
> That makes sense, but is it specified anywhere? Obviously we can't know about
>future extensions using unknown XML constructs - but when we encounter
>an extension using elements/Namespace we know about, then can we know
>what action to take?

Strictly speaking, 29500 and its normative references do not specify
anything about validation of OPC parts in the XML syntax.  

> , but is it specified anywhere?

> > Extensions in standardized namespaces are not allowed
> I'm confused. This unrecognised part makes of a standardised Namespace.
>Does anything in the text state whether this is okay or not?

No, since this OPC part is not standardized by 29500.

> > What do you mean by "semantics"?
> Well, everything really. For any given element x mentioned in the standard, it has
>a schema-defined content model together with (sometimes) datatyping and
>narrative description. Does this mean this is the *only* way this
>element can be used, or can extension writers override what the standard
>allows when that element occurs in an extension?

As long as the element appears in a non-standard OPC part, anything is

> > In my understanding, validity of styleWithEffects.xml is not required by 25900.
> >  If you try to validate it, you are guessing the semantics of MS Office 2010 extensions.
> But the elements it uses are defined by standard schemas. So I repeat my question, 
>are such elements - used in extensions - subject to the constraints of

No.  It is subject to the constraints of the MS Office 2010 extension
specifications.  But these specifications specify the constraints on the 
basis of 29500 schemas.

As an example, I might want to create my own extension of 29500 by
introducing my own OPC part such as:
It is not valid against wml.{xsd,rnc}, but I do not think this
invalidity breaks 209500 conformance.


More information about the sc34wg4 mailing list