Custom XML Defect Reports

[rjelliffe at allette.com.au]

Isn't the distinction that smart tags only wrap inline runs and are
unitary (no overlap, no nesting, no relation with other Smart Tags, no
schema), while customXML can wrap any blocks and are hierarchical (no
overlap, may nest, may be related, may have a schema)?

I think the focus on the schema here may be a too little narrow.

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe


> 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
>
>