Rewriting the scope of Part 3

[Chris Rae]

Hi all - if I remember correctly, we do have a slight problem with making MCE generic with regard to the suspension of MCE processing inside extLst collections. I know we talked in Berlin about some possible ways to get around that, but I don't think we settled on anything - I'd be retiscent to head down the road of generalising MCE before that problem is solved.

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp] 
Sent: 29 June 2011 08:05
To: SC34
Subject: Re: Rewriting the scope of Part 3

Doug,

Thanks for your rewrite.

> Doug then wrote:
> 
> >     Good point, that's a potential are of confusion for those new to MCE.
> >
> >     Perhaps the best solution is to not attempt to define what MCE's
> >     alternate content blocks might contain, but rather address the
> >     purpose/application of ACBs in general. That would eliminate the need
> >     to talk about "elements and attributes that do not exist ..." and then
> >     we could describe the processed document in terms of what it contains,
> >     rather than what it does not contain. In other words, instead of this:
> >
> >     "This Part of ISO/IEC 29500 describes a set of conventions to clearly
> >     mark elements and attributes that do not exist in an XML-based markup
> >     language but are introduced by extensions of the markup language,
> >     while providing a method by which consumers can obtain an XML document
> >     that are free from extensions for interoperability."
>>
> >     Something more like this:
> >
> >     "This Part of ISO/IEC 29500 describes a set of conventions to identify
> >     alternative representations of XML markup and character data that a
> >     markup consumer may choose from based on the namespaces understood by
> >     that consumer, while providing a method by which consumers can obtain
> >     an XML document that only contains elements and attributes that exist
> >     within the namespaces of a single markup language, for
> >     interoperability purposes."

I think that this scope eliminates ignorable elements/attributes.

> >     "A single markup language" ... "a markup language within which MCE is
> >     being used?" They both sound awkward to me, although that's the core
> >     concept involved. Thoughts?

Host markup language?

> >     Do we need to state that the namespaces may or may not be part of the
> >     markup language within which MCE is used? Simply not constraining
> >     "namespace" in any way seems sufficient to me.

I do not think it is required to be stated.

Cheers,
Makoto