DR 09-0320 - OPC: Relationships Markup

[Horton, Gareth]

Hi Shawn,

For the recent batch of proposed fixes, could you indicate which should be addressed in an Amendment vs Corrigendum (in your view)?

Thanks

Gareth

From: Shawn Villaron [mailto:shawnv at microsoft.com]
Sent: 18 March 2010 14:07
To: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given); SC 34 WG4
Subject: RE: DR 09-0320 - OPC: Relationships Markup

We agree.  How does this sound?

Change Part 2, §9.3.2, "Relationship Markup" as follows
Relationship Markup
Relationships are represented using Relationship elements nested in a single Relationships element. These elements are defined in the Relationships namespace, as specified in Annex F. The W3C XML Schema for relationships is described in Annex D.

A Relationships Part shall not be an empty file. If present, a Relationships Part shall hold, at a minimum, a single Relationships root element with no child elements shall be a schema-valid XML document against opc-relationships.xsd.

Similarly, although not requested in the DR, the change should be made to the Rule text of ID M1.26 in Annex H. Guidelines for Meeting Conformance, §H.1 Package Model as follows
A Relationships Part shall not be an empty file. If present, a Relationships Part shall hold, at a minimum, a single Relationships root element with no child elements shall be a schema-valid XML document against opc-relationships.xsd.
The package implementer shall require that every Relationship element has an Id attribute, the value of which is unique within the Relationships part, and that the Id datatype is xsd:ID, the value of which conforms to the naming restrictions for xsd:ID as described in the W3C Recommendation "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes."



-----Original Message-----
From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp]
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 2:47 PM
To: SC 34 WG4
Subject: Re: DR 09-0320 - OPC: Relationships Markup

> must be a schema-valid XML document.

First, s/must/shall/.  In Annex H of ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2:
        Do not use "must" as an alternative     for "shall". (This
        will avoid any confusion between the requirements of a
        document and external statutory obligations.)

Second, add "against opc-relationships.xsd".

Third, is the use of MCE prohibited here?

Cheers,
Makoto


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20100318/9aa39787/attachment-0001.htm>