Custom XML Defect Reports

[Francis Cave]

I note the following wording in the proposed update to the text of Part 1
§17.5.1:

 

“The distinction between custom XML markup and smart tags is that custom XML
markup is based on a schema, which may be specified using the attachedSchema
element
”

 

I don’t think that the revision fully addresses the problem here, and it is
“is based on” that is the heart of the problem. The first part of the
sentence still suggests that custom XML markup SHALL BE based on a schema,
while the second part says that you don’t need to specify the schema. I
would prefer the following wording (assuming this is what is meant):

 

“The distinction between custom XML markup and smart tags is that custom XML
markup may be based on a schema, in which case it is specified using the
attachedSchema element
”

 

Francis

 

 

 

From: Shawn Villaron [mailto:shawnv at microsoft.com] 
Sent: 16 February 2010 00:04
To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: Custom XML Defect Reports

 

Here are two documents regarding responses to some of the custom xml defect
reports.  

 

Thanks,

 

shawn

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20100216/5a02e496/attachment.htm>