Folks,
Here is a feedback on the NVDL FCD from W3C.
I am afraid that my spam filter mistakenly blocked this message.
Martin, is this good enough to put this issue on the
agenda?
Cheers,
Makoto
Forwarded by MURATA Makoto <murata@hokkaido.email.ne.jp>
----------------------- Original Message -----------------------
From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
To: murata@hokkaido.email.ne.jp
Cc: member-cdf@w3.org
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 11:20:31 -0400
Subject: CDF WG feedback on NVDL FCD
---- Makoto - I didn't see an official email address for feedback, so if you you could please forward the following along as our response, that'd be great, thanks! See you in Atlanta! CDF WG - this closes my ACTION-258. ======= The following are the comments of the W3C Compound Document Formats WG on the final committee draft of the NVDL specification[1]. Issue: Assumed dispatch mechanism NVDL appears to make some assumptions that may or may not be compatible with the base CDF framework. In particular, it seems to assume that dispatching is based only on the use of XML namespaces, and not, say, media types, or some combination thereof. The CDF WG has, as of today, not decided upon a dispatching mechanism. I'll use an RDF example (D.2) in the spec to describe the issue; <?xml version="1.0"?> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> <title>Some Page</title> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"> <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/" dc:title="W3C Homepage"/> </rdf:RDF> </head> <body> </body> </html> As-is, that example and the NVDL script that decomposes it into XHTML & RDF sections, should work fine AFAICT. But consider that not all RDF documents have the RDF namespace as the namespace of the root element. For example, this is a perfectly valid RDF document; <Person xmlns="http://example.org/people"> <Name>Mark</Name> <Height>180</Height> </Person> With that document embedded in the XHTML, there's no general NVDL script that could be authored which could extract all RDF embedded within XHTML because the namespaces could be anything. Depending upon what the WG decides, this may or may not be a big issue for NVDL. The group thought though, that if NVDL were to provide the ability to dispatch based on the result of an XPath expression (or similar), that this might provide a certain degree of insulation from what the WG eventually decides. But of course, we can't guarantee that this mechanism will provide a completely general solution. Issue: Triggers The group doesn't fully understand the trigger mechanism and how it is expected to work. We feel it could be better specified. Question: Can NVDL support this example? We wondered one would author an NVDL script to validate the following document; <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xmlns:xf="http://www.w3.org/2002/XForms"> <head> <title>Title</title> </head> <body> <table> <!-- Invalid based on XHTML2 spec --> <xf:model id="model1"> <xf:instance id="inst1"> <stuff xmlns=""> <morestuff>Stuff</morestuff> </stuff> </xf:instance> <tr> <td> <!-- Valid based on XHTML2 spec --> <xf:model id="model2"> <xf:instance id="inst2"> <stuff xmlns=""> <morestuff>Some More Stuff</morestuff> </stuff> </xf:instance> </td> </tr> </table> </body> </html> Specifically, other than dispatching on a given namespace to a validator, do we need to use additional constraints in DSDL? General Comments: In section 5, data model has local names and ns URIs separated out, which is good, but ns prefixes in scope are lost. What if anything happens with qnames in attribute values? Needs more examples, especially of creating element section on the basis of something other than namespace URI, also of sections which are not validated - how to say - "well formed non validated stuff goes here". Need to further study how inherited attributes like xml:lang and xml:base are handled. 6.4.2 may be sufficient, not clear. The use of 'mode' would be clearer with an example, too. This seems to relate to an XML processing pipeline, but it's not totally clear. In 8.7.4 "NOTE This part of the standard does not introduce any standard options. Schema languages or their implementations are recommended to introduce options so that they can interwork with NVDL." What specifically should W3C XML Schema, and RelaxNG, add by way of options to interwork better? I assume that something specific is meant and that the spec is careful not to say what it is; it would still be useful to know what is meant even if the spec remains silent here. Thank you. [1] http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0586.pdf --------------------- Original Message Ends -------------------- -- MURATA Makoto <murata@hokkaido.email.ne.jp> -- DSDL members discussion list To unsubscribe, please send a message with the command "unsubscribe" to dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org (mailto:dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org?Subject=unsubscribe)Received on Fri Nov 4 02:27:28 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 04 2005 - 20:03:02 UTC