Subject: Re: [Crisp] Last Call Comments on common-transport-03

From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:03:18 -0400

Andy,

I don't really think that 3470 has been the cause of confusion. If anything, it has helped to reduce confusion.  The real problem has been that people don't know that it exists, or they haven't really read it.  As you noted, the situation with RelaxNG,  for example,  is typically clarified once people read what the document actually says.

(Sorry for top-posting.  I'm doing this from my Treo.)

-Scott-
(One of the authors of 3470)

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Andrew Newton [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:49 AM Eastern Standard Time
To:	Marcos Sanz/Denic
Cc:	[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject:	Re: [Crisp] Last Call Comments on common-transport-03

Marcos Sanz/Denic wrote:
> 
> Absolutely, the semantics it's the same. The point is whether we need to 
> introduce a new attribute and its definition, or we can resort to one 
> which is already embedded in the XML specification. I'd prefer the latter.
> For me, 3470 strongly recommends to use xml:lang in any case, not only for 
> DTDs, but we can ask the XML directorate about my interpretation. Hmmm... 
> wait a moment! You are a member of the XML directorate! :-)

Keep in mind, 3470 was written before there was an XML directorate. 
Additionally, 3470 has caused great confusion in the IETF with many people 
coming to the XML directorate asking that Relax NG be given the same status 
as XML Schema and DTDs in the mistaken belief that 3470 only allows XML 
Schema and DTDs in IETF work (3470 doesn't say that nor does the XML 
directorate have any power over this).

> So let's keep spaces in it. But if they are like any other characters and 
> common-transport doesn't want to define a specific type of them, why 
> should
> 
> "PLAIN EXTERNAL" match "PLAIN   EXTERNAL"
> 
> ? It seems then to me that whitespace collapsing is not a wished feature, 
> and would tend to use normalizedString.

I don't understand your logic, but I'm fine with the conclusion.

-andy

_______________________________________________
Crisp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp

_______________________________________________
Crisp mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/crisp

---

From: Andrew Newton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:36:57 -0400

> (One of the authors of 3470)

Scott,

3470 talks about XML Schema in about 8 separate places, many of which are 
"here is a recommended way of doing X in XML Schema".  With the exception of 
DTDs, all other schema languages are only mentioned in a small paragraph 
that can be paraphrased as saying, "There are other schema languages." 
Given the now vast number of IETF specifications using XML Schema, it is 
easy for one to conclude that XML Schema is the IETF way, even if 
unofficially in the way that re-using TXT records can cause headaches.

But given you are one of the authors of 3470, perhaps you can answer the 
question at hand.  Does 3470 recommend using xml:lang over something like 
<attribute name="lang" type="language"/> in XML Schema, even though the 
content of both is defined by RFC 3066?  Is the qualification of the element 
name necessary in understanding RFC 3066?  Or is the guidance more general, 
in that XML content that is human language be attributed with 3066 language 
tags so that it might be interpreted in language-dependent contexts?

-andy