Skip to content
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

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Jan 23, 2018

Conversation

palemieux
Copy link
Contributor

Closes #251

@palemieux palemieux added this to the 3rd Ed milestone Jan 10, 2018
@palemieux palemieux self-assigned this Jan 10, 2018
Copy link
Contributor

@nigelmegitt nigelmegitt left a 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spec/ttml1.xml Outdated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"/>.
Copy link
Contributor

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?

Copy link

@andreastai andreastai Jan 10, 2018

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.

Copy link
Contributor Author

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>
Copy link
Contributor

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>
Copy link
Contributor

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.

Copy link

@andreastai andreastai left a 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.

@palemieux palemieux removed the agenda label Jan 10, 2018
Copy link
Contributor

@nigelmegitt nigelmegitt left a 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.

@palemieux palemieux merged commit a3c2585 into master Jan 23, 2018
@skynavga
Copy link
Contributor

This change may need modification to match what gets written into TTML2 on this subject.

@skynavga skynavga deleted the issue-251-ttml-ns-attribute-extension branch March 11, 2018 22:49
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants