Associating Schemas with XML documents 1.0 (First Edition)

Disposition of Comments

Jirka Kosek

$Date: 2010/04/07 11:45:56 $

Abstract

This document contains disposition of comments for Associating Schemas with XML documents 1.0 (First Edition)


ISSUE-1. Identifying schema language (substantial, closed)
ISSUE-2. Future pseudo-attribute extensibility (substantial, closed)
ISSUE-3. Handling of conflicting media types (substantial, closed)
ISSUE-4. Improve scope of xml-model specification (editorial, closed)
ISSUE-5. Stress optionality of xml-model instruction (editorial, closed)

ISSUE-1. Identifying schema language (substantial, closed)

The current xml-model draft requires fetching of resource in order to determine schema language used for an associated schema if schema type can't be determined just from media type as specified in the type pseudo-attribute.

Origin: Several people raised this objection, for example http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Jan/0049.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Feb/0008.html.

Proposed solution

Add new pseudo-attribute called schematypens which can be used for specifying namespace of the schema language used. Combination of schematypens and type is able to cover all currently widely used schema languages as shown in Table 1, “Determining schema language”.

Table 1. Determining schema language

Schema languagetypeschematypens
DTDapplication/xml-dtdnot specified
W3C XML Schemanot specified or application/xmlhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema
RELAX NGnot specified or application/xmlhttp://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0
RELAX NG – compact syntaxapplication/relax-ng-compact-syntaxnot specified
Schematronnot specified or application/xmlhttp://purl.oclc.org/dsdl/schematron
NVDLnot specified or application/xmlhttp://purl.oclc.org/dsdl/nvdl/ns/structure/1.0

Example 1. Multiple schemas associated

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml-model href="http://www.docbook.org/xml/5.0/rng/docbook.rng" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?>
<?xml-model href="http://www.docbook.org/xml/5.0/rng/docbook.xsd" schematypens="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"?>
<book xmlns="http://docbook.org/ns/docbook"></book>

Commentor response to resolution

Accepted. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2010JanMar/0010.html

ISSUE-2. Future pseudo-attribute extensibility (substantial, closed)

The current xml-model draft prohibits other pseudo-attributes then those which are directly defined in the draft. However in the future it might be necessary to introduce new schema specific pseudo-attributes similar to Schematron's phase.

Origin: Several people raised this objection, for example http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2010JanMar/0000.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Feb/0008.html.

Proposed solution

Allow additional pseudo-attributes by removing the following text from the draft:

Documents must not specify other pseudo-attributes on xml-model processing instructions.

and by adding:

An xml-model processor must process all xml-model processing instructions properly and must pass on to the application the full parsing result for each xml-model processing instruction.

Commentor response to resolution

Accepted. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2010JanMar/0010.html

ISSUE-3. Handling of conflicting media types (substantial, closed)

The draft provides both an href pseudo-attribute, and also an explicit type pseudo-attribute. As discussed in the applicable RFCs and the TAG's finding on Authoritative Metadata, any Content-type returned with status code 200 from an HTTP GET is authoritative, regardless of what might be specified in a Type pseudo-attribute.

Origin: Noah Mendelsohn http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2010JanMar/0001.html.

Proposed solution

xml-model specification should deal explicitly with the case where the authoritative metadata contradicts the explicitly specified type. Specification should say that type pseudo-attribute is ignored when it is different from the authoritative type received in HTTP response.

Commentor response to resolution

No response

ISSUE-4. Improve scope of xml-model specification (editorial, closed)

The draft is not stating when to prefer xml-model over other possible schema association techniques.

Origin: WG

Proposed solution

Add the following paragraph as the last paragraph of Introduction.

It should be noted that this specification is not meant as a replacement for other technologies that provide more general and indirect schema association features like NVDL and XProc. This specification is complementary technology which can be used when it is necessary to store ad-hoc schema associations directly inside XML document.

Commentor response to resolution

Accepted by WG.

ISSUE-5. Stress optionality of xml-model instruction (editorial, closed)

The specification should say very explicitly that the presence of xml-model PI is not in itself an instruction to any processor to validate the document, and not a statement that the document is not to be processed without validation. It is a declarative statement of the relation between the document and some (external) schema.

Origin: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-core-wg/2010Feb/0008.html.

Proposed solution

Append the following text at the end of the second paragraph of Introduction.

Presence of xml-model processing instruction is not in itself an instruction to any processor to validate the document, and not a statement that the document is not to be processed without validation. It is a declarative statement of the relation between the document and one or more external schemas.

Commentor response to resolution

Accepted. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-editor/2010JanMar/0010.html