Hi Rania,
It seems to me that we have started finding more common ground.
[a] AP with opacity-omission
[b] AP without opacity-omission
[c] EP
I guess all of us would agree that the syntactic difference between [a]
and [c] are quite big, while syntactic difference between [b] and [c]
are much smaller.
On the other hand, semantic difference between [a] and [b] may not be
that large, while syntactic difference between [a] and [b] are quite
large (as large as between [a] and [c])
I guess all of us would agree with the above analysis and statements.
There are multiple ways to look at this problem:
to use two NS to denote the semantic difference: That is my
current proposal - use two NSes to mark distinction difference between
[a]/[b] and [c], while using "opacityOmissionUsed" to mark the
difference between [a] and [b] and tell which validation mechansim
people should use [a]: "inject-then-validate" or [b]:
"straight-validate"
to use two NS to denote the syntactic difference: [b] and [c]
belongs to the same NS, while [a] has its own NS.
to use three NS to denote both syntactic and semantic
differences: i.e. [a],[b],[c] all have its own NS.
Last and least (yes the least), one gigantic NS cover all [a],[b],[c]
cases. That is the worst situation IMHO. It would present a totally
confusing picture to users about what syntactic and semantic
distinction between AP and EP (I tend to believe our friends at MSFT
would not like that.)
Among the first 3 options, I still most prefer #1 (next is #3). There
are two very overloaded attributes in A.P. - the "profile" attribute
and the "opacityOmissionUsed" attribute (assuming we go for it). The
"profile" attribute can totally shift how an A.P. implementation
interprete an. A.P. Hence, it is a super important attribute that our
schema grammar MUST make it REQUIRED. Otherwise, I can forsee a
situation where people would generate A.P. without that profile
attribute. An A.P. implementation cannot guess what profile the A.P. is
using.
That's why I prefer #1 well above #2 and the one-NS "solution".
Rania ... your further thoughts?
Thanks!
Regards,
Alex Yiu
Rania Khalaf wrote:
Back
to the two namespace issue:
1) If we want a schema for AP that also includes the idea of
omission-shortcut, then the difference between AP and EP is quite big
and two NSs probably make a lot more sense.
2) If we only validate AP after opaque-omission is removed (ie: after
plugging in opaque tokens), then the difference is very small and so we
probably don't need two NSs.
I'm lost at the third position, which is taken in the proposal:
Only validate after plugging in opaque, AND have two NSs.
If we're going to go through the trouble of two NSs, then we might as
well make the schema of the base properly in line with the resolution
of 82, and allow validation without the extra step of replacing omitted
things with opaque='yes'.
