Custom XML Defect Reports

[Francis Cave]

I understand the distinction between Smart Tags and Custom XML. 

What you seem to be suggesting is that the phrase "is based on a schema"
does not imply that this is verifiable, but simply that it would be possible
to write a schema to which the customXML (if suitably-transformed) would
conform, and that, if such a schema exists, it is possible to attach it to
the document.

The previous paragraph states: "Custom XML markup allows the application of
the XML elements defined in any schema syntax (XML Schema, NVDL, etc.) to be
applied to the contents of a WordprocessingML document in one of two
locations...". This also appears to imply that there must be a schema for it
to qualify as Custom XML.

I think the text should make it clear that it is not necessary to attach a
schema to Custom XML, but that, as a consequence of the way in which Custom
XML is expressed (as w:element elements, which are part of the WML schema),
it will always represent well-formed XML.

Francis Cave



> -----Original Message-----
> From: rjelliffe at allette.com.au [mailto:rjelliffe at allette.com.au]
> Sent: 16 February 2010 23:56
> To: francis at franciscave.com
> Cc: e-sc34-wg4 at ecma-international.org
> Subject: RE: Custom XML Defect Reports
> 
> 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
> >
> >