[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] Fwd: DITA 1.3 "XML mention" question
Hmm. I'm surprised I didn't remember this aspect of the XML specification. I'm also surprised that parsers don't report it, but I see that the XML spec doesn't actually define it as an error. But it's good somebody noticed it now. (Can I offer the excuse that it was almost 20 years ago that we published the XML spec and I haven't seen a need to reread it closely much since then?) One solution would be to simply remove the "xml" from the names, leaving: att element nsname pi However, "att" and "element" in particular are a bit too generic. I therefore propose adding a prefix, e.g., "xm-" (XML markup) to all the names to give: xm-numcharref xm-parameterentity xm-textentity xm-att xm-element xm-nsname xm-pi The domain short name "xml-d" also has to change, and "xm-d" would match the proposed prefix. The XML specification only disallows the full string "xml", it doesn't disallow "xm(not l)". Cheers, Eliot ————— Eliot Kimber, Owner Contrext, LLC http://contrext.com On 8/19/14, 12:43 AM, "Bob Thomas" <bob.thomas@tagsmiths.com> wrote: >Wow. What a catch, and what a pain. But, I am grateful that Sandor Kekesi >took the time to point it out. > >Because the W3C XML recommendation is explicit about this, we need to >rename the following elements: > > >xmlatt >xmlelement >xmlnsname > > >xmlpi > > > >I propose that we simply remove "xml" from each name to yield this: > > >att >element >nsname >pi > > > >Best Regards,Bob > > > >On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:52 PM, Nancy Harrison ><nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com> wrote: > >Hi, > > >I received a very interesting piece of mail (see below) as a response to >the DITA 1.3 webinar, and I think we may need to discuss it tomorrow. We >seem to have lost track of a small but telling piece of the XML spec, >that reserves element names beginning with 'xml' or 'XML' for the use of >the XML standard itself. This conflicts with our use of those letters to >begin a number of elements in our XML Mention domain. > > >We may need to revisit those element names, unless someone has a good >reason for why we wouldn't have to follow that part of the spec. > > >I responded to Sandor thanking him for his extremely pertinent comment. > > >Regards, > >Nancy > > > >_____________ >Nancy Harrison >Infobridge Solutions >nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: Kekesi, Sandor (LNG-HBE) <sandor.kekesi@lexisnexis.com> > > > > >Date: Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 11:12 AM >Subject: DITA 1.3 "XML mention" question >To: "nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com" ><nharrison@infobridge-solutions.com> > > >Hi Nancy, > >I attended the 8/7 webinar and had a question on the DITA Domains >component of the presentation, in particular “XML mention”. I wasn’t >sure how to direct this question to the TC so I hope you don’t mind that >I’m emailing you directly. > >So on to my question: I was wondering if the TC had considered the >proposed naming of the XML mention markup “xmlelement” might be in >conflict with the following (highlighted) portion of the XML TR: > > >http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/ >3 Logical Structures[Definition: > Each XML > document <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#dt-xml-doc> contains one or more >elements, > the boundaries of which are either delimited by start-tags ><http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#dt-stag> and end-tags ><http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#dt-etag>, > or, for empty <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#dt-empty> elements, > by an empty-element > tag <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#dt-eetag>. Each element has a type, >identified by name, sometimes called its "generic identifier" (GI), and >may have a set of attribute specifications.] Each attribute specification >has a name <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#dt-attrname> and > a value <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#dt-attrval>. >Element[39] >element > ::= >EmptyElemTag <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#NT-EmptyElemTag> >| STag <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#NT-STag> content ><http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#NT-content> ETag ><http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#NT-ETag> >[WFC: Element Type Match] <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#GIMatch> >[VC: Element Valid] <http://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#elementvalid> >This specification does not constrain the application semantics, use, or >(beyond syntax) names of the element types and attributes, >except that names beginning with a match to (('X'|'x')('M'|'m')('L'|'l')) >are > reserved for standardization in this or future versions of this >specification. > > >My team here at LexisNexis has been using DITA for a few years now; we >had designed a similar domain customization to delimit XML and PATH >structures, and at first we similarly named these elements beginning with >“xml…” but then reversed > course when we realized that the XML TR mentioned that such naming is >reserved. > >Just wanted to bring this to your attention and curious to know if the TC >had indeed considered this and to learn their rationale for whether there >is a conflict or if there’s an allowable usage of an element name >beginning with “xml” here. > >Thanks, > >Sandor Kekesi >LexisNexis >Sr. Content Engineer >Jersey City, New Jersey >201.435.2051 <tel:201.435.2051> >sandor.kekesi@lexisnexis.com <mailto:sandor.g.kekesi@lexisnexis.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- >Bob Thomas+1 720 201 8260 <tel:%2B1%20720%20201%208260> >Skype: bob.thomas.colorado >Instant messaging: Gmail chat (bob.thomas@tagsmiths.com) or Skype >Time zone: Mountain (GMT-7) > > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]