Proposed fix for DR 10-0016 ("MCE: Core Concepts")

[Alex Brown]

Chris hi

> Howdy... sorry, I do see what you mean about "enhanced or modified"
> implying that subsumption is required.
> 
> When we planned our extensions, we did think we were being compliant
> with part 3 - I believe we went with adding children in other namespaces
> over subsumption because subsumption makes for a worse back-compat
> story (older application lose the entire elements, rather than just the extra
> attributes). 

But surely any legacy apps which handled MCE at all would have to handle subsumption, since that is part of MCE?

>I think we were under the impression that either subsumption or
> the use of ignorable namespaces for children were valid.

Wouldn't that depend on interpreting "modified or enhanced" as meaning nothing? But once you start adding novel new features to an existing vocabulary I don't see any way of claiming you are doing anything other than modifying or enhancing that markup!

Perhaps the text could be amended in line with your approach ... but that still leaves two different approaches with (it seems to me) no standards-based way to decide between them -- which is not good for interoperability.
 
> I'm going to go and find the developers to see how they were reading the
> standard - would it be ok if I reported back on the next WG4 call and we can
> work out where to go from there?

Well that is over two weeks away. I was rather hoping we could move towards a resolution soon with the benefit of some on-list discussion -- things are rather becalmed at the moment. 

That said I won't be able to attend the next conference calls, so I'll leave it to others to comment ...

- Alex.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________