RE: PIDF - using xml schema

On 19 April 2002 17:59, Graham Klyne wrote:
> At 04:40 PM 4/19/02 +0100, Adrian Bateman wrote:
> >I've just finished reading 
> >draft-hollenbeck-ietf-xml-guidelines-00.txt
> >and have the following observations for consideration:
> >
> >* draft-ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-02.txt:Section 3.1
> >
> >I think we should change this to REQUIRE an XML declaration. We 
> >should
> >mandate the use of UTF-8 and recommend that the encoding attribute 
> >SHOULD be used to explicitly note the use of UTF-8.
> 
> I'm not up to speed on the detail issues here, but the XML declaration
> seems to me rather like excess baggage.  I have a (weak) preference to
go 
> the other way; i.e. prohibit it.  (xml-guidelines say to be explicit, 
> IIRC.)  As for mandating UTF-8, I agree.

The text that suggested to me that we should have it is:

   In other cases, the XML is a larger component which may
   find its way alone as an external entity body, transported as a MIME
   message.  In those cases, the XML declaration is an important marker
   and useful for reliability and extensibility.


> >* draft-ietf-impp-cpim-pidf-02.txt:Section 4.4
> >
> >Rather than the DTD, we should use an XML schema and insist that PIDF
> >documents MUST be valid according to the schema.
> 
> Again, I'm not up to speed on the subtleties.  But IIRC, XML schema 
> handles
> the extensibility more smoothly so might be a better choice.  I think
it is 
> worth leaving the DTD in as a (non-normative) appendix because many
folks 
> are more familiar with that.  If nothing else, it will help these
folks to 
> understand the schema.

That sounds fair enough. I sit in the other camp and have no real idea
when it comes to DTD's :o).

Adrian.




  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]