-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Clarify validation of undefined items in TT namespaces #321
Conversation
Built version available at https://rawgit.com/w3c/ttml1/issue-251-ttml-ns-attribute-extension-build/index.html |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The explanatory paragraph needs some editing.
spec/ttml1.xml
Outdated
@@ -1097,6 +1097,35 @@ conformant <emph>Document Instance</emph>, a given <emph>Document Instance</emph | |||
constrained by the author or authoring tool to satisfy a more | |||
restrictive definition of validity.</p> | |||
</note> | |||
<note> | |||
<p>As illustrated in the following example, an <emph>Abstract Document Instance</emph> can be a <emph>Valid Abstract Document Instance</emph> even if it includes elements and attributes whose namespace names are listed in <specref ref="namespace-vocab-table"/> but are not defined in this version of the specification. Specifically, the element <code>foo</code> and the attribute <att>tts:foo</att> are pruned by above steps (1) and (3), respectively, because they are not members of the associated <emph>Abstract Document Type</emph>, even though their namespace names are listed in <specref ref="namespace-vocab-table"/>. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How can an element or attribute have a namespace name that is both listed in the table and not defined in the specification? Is that supposed to say that its namespace is listed in the table but its name is not defined within that namespace by this specification?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Edited comment: Removed comments on the use of the term "namespace name" after checking the namespace spec.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is that supposed to say that its namespace is listed in the table but its name is not defined within that namespace by this specification?
Yes.
</td> | ||
</tr> | ||
</tbody> | ||
</table> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It seems to be more common in the spec to explain the example in following text rather than preceding text. Suggest moving the explanation to here.
spec/ttml1.xml
Outdated
@@ -1132,6 +1161,9 @@ which all foreign namespace elements and attributes have been removed. Therefore | |||
exceptional reporting of this false negative does not impact the formal assessment | |||
of <emph>Document Instance</emph> validity.</p> | |||
</note> | |||
<note role="clarification"> | |||
<p>The schemas referenced by this specification are designed for use after the pruning steps (1)-(3) specified by <specref ref="doctypes"/> have been applied.</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think I'd prefer "intended" rather than "designed" here but that's a minor point.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
From my side this PR can be merged once the ambiguous use of "namespace name" is removed.
I will also not object to the PR as the validation strategy has been in TTML 1 for a long time.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd still prefer the explanation to come beneath the fragment example but it's not a serious enough problem to block approval.
This change may need modification to match what gets written into TTML2 on this subject. |
Closes #251