|
Title: |
Summary of Voting on JTC 1/SC 34 N 363 CD Ballot for 19757-4 - DSDL Part 4 - Selection of Validation Candidates |
|
Source: |
|
|
Project: |
19757-4 - DSDL Part 4 |
|
Project editors: |
WG 1 |
|
Status: |
|
|
Action: |
Based on the ballot responses, this CD is approved to advance to FCD ballot. Project Editors are requested to review comments and take them into consideration when preparing revised text. |
|
Date: |
26 March 2003 |
|
Summary: |
|
|
Distribution: |
SC34 and Liaisons |
|
Refer to: |
|
|
Supercedes: |
|
|
Reply to: |
Dr. James David Mason
|
SC 34 Voting Summary on JTC 1/SC 34 N 363 CD Ballot for 19757-4 - DSDL Part 4 - Selection of Validation Candidates
|
P-Member |
APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT AS PRESENTED
|
APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT WITH COMMENTS AS GIVEN ON THE
ATTACHED
|
DISAPPROVAL OF THE DRAFT FOR REASONS ON THE ATTACHED
|
Acceptance of these reasons and appropriate changes in the
text will change our vote to approval
|
ABSTENTION (For Reasons Below):
|
|
Brazil |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Canada |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
China |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Denmark |
|
|
|
|
|
|
France |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ireland |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Italy |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Japan |
|
X (gen / tech) |
|
|
|
|
Republic of Korea |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Netherlands |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
Norway |
X |
|
|
|
|
|
United
Kingdom |
|
|
X |
X |
|
|
United
States |
X |
|
|
|
|
JAPAN Comments
1. General
We believe that
MNS(Multiple Namespaces) from James Clark is an
important
contribution.
We propose to make Part 4 independent from Part 1.
That is, it should
be possible to use Part 4 without using Part 1, just like
we can use
Part 2 without using Part 1. This independence is consistent
with the
spirit of DSDL.
2. Specific
2.1 Isses listed in the
CD
>Issue 1: Should we drop attribute-based selection (4.2)?
We
do not see any requirements for attribute-based selection.
We propose
to drop attribute-based selection from Part 4.
>Issue 2: Is the design
of attribute-based selection powerful enough?
Drop attribute-based
selection.
>Issue 3: Should we unify namespace-based selection (4.1)
and
>attribute-based selection (4.2)?
Drop attribute-based
selection.
>Issue 4: Should we allow attributes as validation
candidates? In
>other words, should we detach attributes from elements?
This might be
>useful for allowing common attributes.
Allow
attributes as validation candidates and use MNS as a basis. It
might
make sense to validate attributes from multiple
namespaces
together.
>Issue 5: Should we introduce an additional
constraint that applies to
>the validation candidate representing the
document root?
We believe that such constraints on root elements are
strongly
required. However, in our opinion, this is just one example
of
fragment interaction. For example, we might want to allow
XHTML
paragraphs in CALS tables but disallow XHTML root elements in
CALS
tables. Issue 5 is an interaction between the document root and
the
root element.
When individual schemas are open and can be slightly
modified, we can
easily represent constraints on such interactions.
Ideally, such
modifications should be provided by the overriding feature
of
<include> of RELAX NG.
When individual schemas are closed or
they cannot be modified at all,
it is not easy to capture such
constraints. The context feature of
MNS is an interesting attempt, but
we are not sure if it hits an 80/20
point.
>Issue 6: Should we
introduce an additional attribute of dummy to
>represent the tag name of
the original element?
This is an attempt to capture more constraints on
fragmment
interaction (see Issue 8). Although this extension is ad-hoc,
we feel
that it hits an 80/20 point.
>Issue 7: Should we use
foreign elements rather than dummy elements?
Yes,
s/dummy/foreign/g.
>Issue 8: Should we duplicate subtrees rather than
extracting them? In
>other words, should we keep original elements rather
than replacing
>them with dummy elements?
MNS suggest another
option, which is to delete original elements.
Among the three options, which
one should DSDL part 4 adopt? Here
are some observations, which
hopefully help discussion at SC 34.
An advantage of the keep option is
that we can use open schemas
without changing them. Another advantage
is that, if we slightly
modify individual schemas, can easily captrue
constraints on fragmment
interaction. Meanwhile, a disadvantage is that
it requires
duplication of validation, thus making validation
slow.
The delete option has a similar advantage: we can use closed
schemas
without changing them. However, this option does not
allow
individual schemas to represent constraints on fragmment
interaction.
An advantage of the dummy option is that it avoids
duplication of
entire subtrees but can still capture some constraints on
fragmment
interaction. A disadvantage is that it mandates changes
in
individual schemas.
>Issue 9: Should extracted fragments inherit
XML version numbers?
We do not see any requirements for this
feature.
>Issue 10: Should extracted fragments inherit namespace
declarations?
Part 4 should use the data model of Part 2, which expands
namespace
declarations and remove comments and PIs. Then, fragments
will
inherit namespace declarations.
>Issue 11: Should extracted
fragments inherit xml:lang, xml:base, and
>other such
attributes?
We believe that attribute inheritance is outside the scope
of
validation. We thus propose not to introduce such
inheritance.
>Issue 12: Should we allow foreign-namespace elements and
attributes
>(annotations) as does RELAX NG?
DSDL part 4 should
allow annotation elements and attributes. A
normative schema for XML
representations of DSDL Part 4 should use
DSDL Part 4 for representing such
annotations.
>Issue 13: Should we allow the VSCL root element to have
a version
>attribute indicating the version of DSDL VSCL?
Introduce
an attribute similar to Part 2.
>Issue 14: Which namespace URI is
appropriate for DSDL VCSL?
We do not have any comments.
>Issue
15: Which namespace URI is appropriate for dummy nodes? At
>present,
http://www.xml.gr.jp/xmlns/dummy is used.
We do not have any
comments.
2.2 Others
1) <include>
We propose to
introduce <include>, which is similar to <include> of
Part
2. The overriding feature of <include> allows easy
modifications
of VCSL descriptions.
2) embedding of individual
schemas
We propose to allow VCSL descriptions to directly
contain
schmas. This feature is particularly useful, when we have
to
slightly adjust existing schemas.
UK
Comments
The text of the document submitted
for vote is insufficiently complete for it to
be possible to assess its
suitability as a Committee Draft. Without the syntax
and formal reference model we cannot
make an adequate judgment on the text.
From the fragmentary text available
for assessment it seems likely that the
overall technical approach being
suggested for this Part of DSDL is too
simplistic. For example, the
attribute selection process is too weak to consider
realistic. It only allows one
attribute at a time to be used to identify fragments,
rather than sets of attributes. It
does not allow the same attribute to be used to
select fragments based on the value
assigned to the attribute. Also, there is
no mechanism for selecting fragments
based on elements or element content.
A much more complete draft is needed
for a proper judgment to be formed.