This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
In the WD, it is mentioned that: [Definition: Schema language refers in this specification to XML DTD, XML Schema or RELAX NG.] Do you need to provide a closed list of schema languages? You could define in the spec how to use ITS with these three and still explicitely leave the option of using ITS in other schema languages using the annotation mechanisms available in these languages. Eric
(In reply to comment #0) > In the WD, it is mentioned that: > > [Definition: Schema language refers in this specification to XML DTD, XML Schema > or RELAX NG.] > > Do you need to provide a closed list of schema languages? You could define in > the spec how to use ITS with these three and still explicitely leave the option > of using ITS in other schema languages using the annotation mechanisms available > in these languages. > > Eric The list is only closed for what is generated automatically, and non-normatively from the ODD source document, see http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.odd . We will probably have a conformance section saying "a schema which hosts ITS markup declarations has to make sure ... about the positions of the declarations" (e.g. data category attributes MUST be available for all elements. But that conformance criterion will talk about the positions on a schema-independent level.
This is the summary of the topic "Why a closed list of schema languages", which we will discuss until next meeting. Currently, ITS is defined within the ODD language, see http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.odd . This document contains both the prose description of ITS and the schema declarations. From the ODD document, schemas in the format of XML DTDs, XML Schema and RELAX NG are generated automatically. However, these are not normative schema modules, nobody is forced to use them. To integrate ITS markup declarations in your existing or new schema (no matter if it is written in the three languages mentioned above or another one), you only have to make sur e that the positions of the schema declarations described at http://www.w3.org/International/its/itstagset/itstagset.html#conformance-product-schema are respected. Describing the conformance to ITS markup declarations in terms of the positions in the existing or new schema, would resolve the bug which Eric reported.
His another possibility which I see to address Eric's concern: 1. Change the definition as follows: [Definition: Schema language refers in this specification to an XML-related modelling or validation language such as XML DTD, XML Schema or RELAX NG.] 2. Be explicit about the status and motivation of the formalizations which ITS provides: a. ITS gives formalizations which are non-normative b. ITS gives formalizations in XML DTD, XML Schema and RELAX NG since these schema languages appear to be most relevant for ITS usage scenarios Best regards, Christian
(In reply to comment #3) > His another possibility which I see to address Eric's concern: > > 1. Change the definition as follows: > > [Definition: Schema language refers in this specification to an XML-related > modelling or validation language such as XML DTD, XML Schema > or RELAX NG.] > > 2. Be explicit about the status and motivation of the formalizations which ITS > provides: > > a. ITS gives formalizations which are non-normative > b. ITS gives formalizations in XML DTD, XML Schema and RELAX NG since these > schema languages appear to be most relevant for ITS usage scenarios > > Best regards, > Christian > +1 for everything, except "modeling or"
I agree with Christian. This seems like just a matter of the wording, not anything serious.
Implemented the change approved at http://www.w3.org/2006/03/29-i18nits-minutes.html#item03
Closed, no further action necessary.