Proposed text for Clause 9

Wed Aug 21 22:57:41 CEST 2013

I think what we need to decide is the extent to which Part 3 constrains the
way in which MCE processors handle extension elements. I realise that
extension elements as currently defined in general terms by Part 3 and in
specific terms by Part 1 are not to be processed by MCE processors. My
concern is that, while this clearly true of OOXML, I'm not sure that all
other possible applications of MCE would necessarily want this constraint. I
see no reason in principle why an extension element could not be specified
in such a way that it makes sense to require MCE processors to process their
contents. That just doesn't happen to be the case for OOXML. If we leave
this constraint in Part 3, I am concerned that we are limiting the extent to
which other applications might wish to adopt MCE.

I suggest we discuss this further in Delft.

Regards,

Francis

From: John Haug [mailto:johnhaug at exchange.microsoft.com] 
Sent: 21 August 2013 21:36
To: 'SC 34/WG 4 mailing list'
Subject: RE: Proposed text for Clause 9

> Nobody has responded to my latest mail.  Perhaps, people need full text.
Let me try.

I like the proposal to replace markup consumer/producer with
consuming/producing application.  This seems to be more in line with Part 1,
which talks a lot about consumers and producers and defines both as
applications.  There is one clause in Part 1 that contains "markup consumer"
and "markup producer" (18.2.10) and we may want to edit away that usage as
part of DR 13-0009.

> - Reformulate normative sentences on "markup consumer" as those on "MCE
processor".

I think "markup consumer" was used to refer to the application layer above
the MCE processor, the consuming application that feeds and takes output
from an MCE processor.

> Use "consuming application" and "producing application" in informative
statements and nowhere else

Not sure we need to make them informative only since they do exist, provide
context and are discussed frequently in Part 1.  But if the intention is to
strictly scope the text in Part 3 only to the world of the MCE processor and
avoid discussing anything outside that, then I agree with your assertion.

> Murata-san: "We require that MCE processors copy application-defined
elements (together with their attributes and contents) from the input to the
output. "

> Francis: "such specifications must specify how such mechanisms are to be
handled by MCE processors."

Is there potential conflict here?  It seems reasonable for the MCE processor
to emit extensions (unprocessed).  Francis' also seems right if I think
about it from the perspective of the consuming application (e.g., does a
consumer ignore non-understood extensions, preserve or discard on save, pass
understood extensions back into a MCE processor, etc.).  But from the
perspective of an MCE processor, does Francis' statement mean that the
markup specification using MCE might require a MCE processor to process
extensions or to not emit them (unprocessed)?

> Maybe we can agree that Part 3 only has to support the first case, but I
think it is worth some discussion.

The first case is the way I interpret the existing text: MCE processing is
suspended within extensions, Part 3 makes no requirements on how it is used
within a markup specification.

From: Francis Cave [mailto:francis at franciscave.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 5:43 AM
To: 'SC 34/WG 4 mailing list'
Subject: RE: Proposed text for Clause 9

Sorry, I tried to draft a response, but in the end I didn't think it was a
useful contribution so I didn't send it.

I agree that the terminology currently is causing some confusion, especially
the term "markup consumer". I think I agree that we only need "MCE
processor" as a formally-defined term and that "consuming application" and
"producing application" don't need to be formally defined, but would like to
hear the views of others on this.

I  agree with Murata-san's two principles. However, I suggest a third:

-          If markup specifications that apply MCE use additional
extensibility mechanisms, such as extension elements, such specifications
must specify how such mechanisms are to be handled by MCE processors.

Thinking about this, I can imagine that different markup specifications
might (theoretically) specify a variety of interactions between MCE and
extension elements, i.e.

-          Use of MCE is allowed anywhere. MCE processors must not process
the content of extension elements. (This is the OOXML case.)

-          Use of MCE is only allowed within extension elements. MCE
processors must (only) process the content of extension elements and either
ignore or treat as errors (mismatches?) MCE constructs that occur elsewhere.
(This is a restricted case, where schema extension is only allowed within
extension elements.)

-          Use of MCE is only allowed within extension elements. MCE
processors must process the content of some extension elements but not
others. (This is a combination of the first two cases.)

Maybe we can agree that Part 3 only has to support the first case, but I
think it is worth some discussion. I accept that the meaning of "extension
element" is different in the first case from in the other two cases.

Regards,

Francis

From: eb2mmrt at gmail.com [mailto:eb2mmrt at gmail.com] On Behalf Of MURATA
Makoto
Sent: 21 August 2013 12:12
To: SC 34/WG 4 mailing list
Subject: Re: Proposed text for Clause 9

Nobody has responded to my latest mail.  Perhaps, people need  

full text.  Let me try.

Regards,

Makoto

2013/8/16 MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp>

John and Francis,

As I said during the teleconf, I think that the confusion stems 

from non-clear separation of MCE processors and applications

in the current text.  I am trying to clarify requirements on 

MCE processors.  Meanwhile Francis is trying to allow 

some office suites NOT to preserve ext elements.  (I agree

that such office suites should not be prohibited by 29500.)

Here is what I would like to propose.

Principles

- MCE processors are crucial in MCE, just like XML processors are 

  crucial in XML.  Clearly define requirements on MCE processors.

- Consuming applications are built on top of MCE processors at least

  conceptually.  There should be no requirements on consuming 

  applications.  Nothing prevents some office suite from discarding 

  ext elements in SML.

General

- The term "markup consumer" is considered misleading, since it makes it

  difficult for us to separate MCE processors and consuming 

  applications.

- Drop "markup consumer" and "markup producer" from the Terms

  and Definitions clause.

- Reformulate normative sentences on "markup consumer" 

  as those on "MCE processor".

- Use "consuming application" and "producing application" in

  informative statements and nowhere else.  These are usual noun

  phrases rather than terms defined in the Terms and Definitions

  clause.  These phrases are used only for providing a high-level 

  overview.

- Unless there are mismatches or errors, MCE processors emit

  output documents, as specified in the revised Part 3.  We require

  that MCE processors copy application-defined elements (together

  with their attributes and contents) from the input to the output.

If people agree with the above approach, I will prepare replacement 

text.

Regards,

Makoto

2013/8/16 John Haug <johnhaug at exchange.microsoft.com>

I believe the current text implies that the MCE processor does nothing with
them by saying that MCE processing is suspended within them - that it's just
a pass-through as Murata-san mentioned.  Whether they're preserved in the
output document it out of scope for that pass of the MCE processor.  I
believe thhis also matches our implementation - the MCE processor just hands
them up to the calling markup consumer / application program, which decides
whether to crack them open, I believe by handing them to a MCE processor (if
they're understood) or ignore them (if they're not understood) and choosing
whether to discard or retain them for the next file save.

At least, that's always been m understanding.

John

-----Original Message-----
From: Francis Cave [mailto:francis at franciscave.com]

Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 1:53 PM
To: 'SC 34/WG 4 mailing list'
Subject: RE: Proposed text for Clause 9

John

The intent of my original text (which, you're right, I didn't copy to the WG
list - apologies about that) was to avoid saying anything normative about
the behaviour of MCE processors with respect to extension elements, as I
felt it is a feature of OOXML as a markup spec that extension elements
should be untouched by MCE processors and not necessarily a required feature
of all MCE applications. I think that Murata-san has convinced me - almost -
that MCE processors should always leave extension elements untouched, so
that the application software part of the markup consumer can determine what
to do with extension elements that it does or does not understand.

Kind regards,

Francis

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Haug [mailto:johnhaug at exchange.microsoft.com]
> Sent: 15 August 2013 21:34
> To: 'SC 34/WG 4 mailing list'
> Subject: RE: Proposed text for Clause 9
>
> May I risk wading into this?  I think I understand Murata-san's points
> and
I
> think the general direction of his text is OK.  But I also think
> Francis
has a
> point about the way the language is used.
>
> Re: the second paragraph:
> I believe it ought not mention preservation, since that is an optional
> function of the markup consumer.  Murata-san pointed out that "MCE
processors
> simply pass application defined extension elements to application
programs"
> which is correct.  But I agree with Francis that the language of the
second
> paragraph sounds like "extension elements shall be preserved in the
> output document".  May I suggest that the second paragraph be reformed
> to simply point to section 10 for rules about how MCE processors
> handle extension elements?
>
> Re: Murata-san's follow-up comment:
>       > "recognise" in this context means "preserve".
>       Well, I meant that the markup configuration, which is a set of
expanded
> names, contain the expanded names of application-defined extension
elements.
> If that means the point of the second paragraph is to state the markup
> configuration remains unchanged (not sure if that is the point), then
> I'd suggest it's not necessary to state that since there is no
> indication in
the
> text that the markup configuration would ever change.
>
> Re: the last paragraph:
> I suggest we make that a Note.  It's good clarifying information worth
making
> clear that we consider it normal behavior.  Even though the whole
> clause 9
is
> informative, the statement is about something outside the scope of
specifying
> an MCE processor and I think it would make the intent that it's
> ancillary information more clear by making it an explicit Note.
>
> The only thing I can't evaluate is Francis' statement " Your proposed
> text
...
> defines an extension element somewhat more narrowly than I had
> proposed in
my
> draft text".  I don't know what original draft text is referred to here.
It
> looks like Murata-san's text (and the relevant bits of clause 10)
> mirrors
what
> is specified in the existing Part 3.
>
> John
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francis Cave [mailto:francis at franciscave.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 5:56 AM
> To: 'SC 34/WG 4 mailing list'
> Subject: RE: Proposed text for Clause 9
>
> Murata-san
>
> I understand the distinction between MCE processors and markup consumers.
>
> > To me, markup consumers and MCE processors are very different.
> > Requirements on MCE processors have to be very clear.  Their
> > behaviours
> are
> > complet[el]y predictable.  But requirements on markup consumers are
> > much
> more
> > predictable.
>
> I think you mean that the requirements on markup consumers are much
> LESS predictable.
>
> But if the behaviours of MCE processors are completely predictable,
> should these not be specified normatively somewhere? If the behaviour
> of an MCE processor with respect to extension elements must be
> completely
predictable,
> this behaviour must be specified normatively. Where is it to be specified?
> Either in the MCE spec or in the markup spec.
>
> I think that my confusion is between the specification of extension
elements
> (in the markup spec) and the specification of MCE processor behaviour
> (in
the
> MCE spec). If we can completely specify MCE processor behaviour with
respect
> to extension elements, this should be done normatively in the MCE
> spec. If
we
> cannot - i.e. it depends upon how the extension elements are specified
> in
the
> markup spec - we cannot say anything normative about it in the MCE
> spec
and we
> probably shouldn't make too many assumptions about it.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Francis
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: eb2mmrt at gmail.com [mailto:eb2mmrt at gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> > MURATA
> Makoto
> > Sent: 13 August 2013 13:11
> > To: SC 34/WG 4 mailing list
> > Subject: Re: Proposed text for Clause 9
> >
> > Francis,
> >
> > Perhaps, the problem is the ambiguity in our terminology:
> > markup consumer , MCE processor, and application program.
> > We might want to make this point clear in Clause 7.
> >
> > > Your second paragraph says:
> > >
> > > "If an MCE processor is configured to recognise extension
> > > elements, it preserves them together with their attributes and
contents."
> > >
> > > I think what you are saying is that an MCE processor that is
> > > configured to recognise extension elements will ALWAYS preserve them.
> > > In other words,
> >
> > Exactly.  But I am talking about the MCE processor.  I am not
> > talking
> about
> > markup consumers.
> >
> > > "recognise" in this context means "preserve".
> >
> > Well, I meant that the markup configuration, which is a set of
> > expanded
> names,
> > contain the expanded names of application-defined extension elements.
> >
> > > If this is ALWAYS the case,
> > > that sounds to me like a normative provision. If it is up to the
> > > application to specify this (as I thought we had agreed), it may
> > > not always be the case, in which we should not imply that in the MCE
spec.
> >
> > To me, markup consumers and MCE processors are very different.
> > Requirements on MCE processors have to be very clear.  Their
> > behaviours
> are
> > complety predictable.  But requirements on markup consumers are much
> > more predictable.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Makoto
> >
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > >
> > > Francis
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: eb2mmrt at gmail.com [mailto:eb2mmrt at gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> > >> MURATA
> > > Makoto
> > >> Sent: 13 August 2013 11:12
> > >> To: SC34
> > >> Subject: Re: Proposed text for Clause 9
> > >>
> > >> Francis,
> > >>
> > >> > 1. Your proposed text (expecially the first sentence of the
> > >> > second paragraph, and the final paragraph) defines an extension
> > >> > element somewhat more narrowly than I had proposed in my draft
> > >> > text. Yours is closer to what
> > >>
> > >> I rather think that your wording states too much about
> > >> application
> > > programs.
> > >> I think that we should limit our concern to behaviours of MCE
> > >> processors
> > > and
> > >> try to avoid describing behaviours of application programs.
> > >> MCE processors simply pass application defined extension elements
> > >> to application programs.  The behaviours of MCE processors have
> > >> to be very
> > > clear
> > >> for interoperability.
> > >>
> > >> > is currently in OOXML, which may be a good thing (it shouldn't
> > >> > break any OOXML implementations), but I still wonder whether
> > >> > the MCE spec should be quite so proscriptive about the
> > >> > processing of extension elements or should instead leave it to
> > >> > the markup specification to define how MCE processors should
> > >> > handle extension elements in each specific case. Putting it
> > >> > another way, your proposed Clause 9 seems to be saying
> > >> > something normative about the processing of extension elements,
> > >> > although you have made it clear in the Clause heading that the
> > >> Clause is informative.
> > >>
> > >> My 2nd para may look normative at a first glance, but it is not.
> > >> It just gives a high-level overview without providing details.
> > >> Details are
> > > provided
> > >> in the itemized lists in Steps 1 and 2.
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > 2. At the end of the second paragraph you have a
> > >> > cross-reference to "Clause 9". This is self-referential, so
> > >> > clearly wrong. What is
> meant?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Oops.  Clause 10 Semantic Definitions and Reference Processing Model.
> > >>
> > >> Regards,
> > >> Makoto
> > >>
> > >> > Kind regards,
> > >> >
> > >> > Francis
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> >> From: eb2mmrt at gmail.com [mailto:eb2mmrt at gmail.com] On Behalf
> > >> >> Of MURATA
> > >> > Makoto
> > >> >> Sent: 13 August 2013 10:11
> > >> >> To: SC34
> > >> >> Subject: Proposed text for Clause 9
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Dear colleagues,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Here is a proposed rewrite of Clause 9.  It is based on Francis'
> > >> >> wording
> > >> > but
> > >> >> has been modified and further expanded by two examples.  Thanks.
> > >> >> >
> > >> > Francis.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Regards,
> > >> >> Makoto
> > >> >>
> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> > --
> > >> > --
> > >> > ---
> > >> > ------
> > >> > -
> > >> >>
> > >> >> 9. Extension elements defined by a markup specification
> > >> >> (informative)
> > >> >>
> > >> >> A markup specification that uses Markup Compatibility elements
> > >> >> and
> > >> > attributes
> > >> >> to allow extensions in namespaces other than those defined by
> > >> >> the markup specification may also define one or more specific
> > >> >> extension elements in
> > >> > the
> > >> >> namespaces that it defines. [Note: If the markup specification
> > >> >> includes a schema, any extension elements would normally be
> > >> >> constrained by the schema
> > >> > to
> > >> >> occur only in specific markup contexts. end note].
> > >> >>
> > >> >> If an MCE processor is configured to recognise extension
> > >> >> elements, it preserves them together with their attributes and
> contents.
> > >> >> See Clause 9
> > >> > for
> > >> >> details.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> [Example:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > https://subversion.assembla.com/svn/IS29500/trunk/Part3/TestDat
> > >> > a/
> > >> > Ex
> > >> > ten
> > >> > sionEl
> > >> > em
> > >> >> ents/example1.xml
> > >> >>
> > >> >> In this example, the e1:foo element contains the unknown:foo
> element.
> > >> >> Suppose that a markup configuration contains an expanded name
> > >> >> ("http://www.example.com/e1", "foo") and that an application
> > >> >> configuration does not contain "http://www.example.com/unknown".
> > >> >> Then, the element e1:foo is an application-defined extension
> element.
> > >> >> Although the unknown:foo element does not belong to an
> > >> >> understood or
> > >> > ignorable
> > >> >> namespace, the MCE processor preserves it and does not report
> > >> >> any
> > > errors.
> > >> > end
> > >> >> example]
> > >> >>
> > >> >> [Example:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> > https://subversion.assembla.com/svn/IS29500/trunk/Part3/TestDat
> > >> > a/
> > >> > Ex
> > >> > ten
> > >> > sionEl
> > >> > em
> > >> >> ents/example2.xml
> > >> >>
> > >> >> In this example, Markup Compatibility elements and attributes
> > >> >> occur within
> > >> > the
> > >> >> extensionElement element, which is the only child of the root
> > >> >> element
> > >> > example.
> > >> >> Suppose that a markup configuration contains an expanded name
> > >> >> ("http://www.example.com/e1", "extensionElement").
> > >> >> Then, the MCE processor preserves the extensionElement element.
> > >> >> Therefore, MCE elements and attributes within it, namely
> > >> > mce:Ignorable="i1",
> > >> >> mce:ProcessContent="i1:bar1", mce:MustUnderstand="e1",
> > >> > mce:AlternateConent,
> > >> >> mce:Choice, and mce:Fallback, appear in the output document.
> > >> >> end example]
> > >> >>
> > >> >> After receiving the output of an MCE processor, application
> > >> >> programs may further invoke an MCE processor to handle Markup
> > >> >> Compatibility elements
> > >> > and
> > >> >> attributes within extension elements.
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake
> > >>
> > >> Makoto
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake
> >
> > Makoto

-- 

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto 

-- 

Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake

Makoto 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20130821/dcade6b3/attachment-0001.html>