codelist — archive

[Ken Holman]

Thanks, Paul, for your thoughts on this. At 2008-01-08 09:42 +0000, Paul Spencer wrote: >Sorry it has taken me a while to catch up, but I have now read this draft. > >As a general point, why XPath 1.0, not 2.0? I felt this was an implementation issue. As I understand it, there is only one available implementation of XSLT/XPath 2.0. How about I replace "XPath 1.0" with just "XSLT/XPath", and then the user can choose the level of XSLT/XPath they use in their CVA file? Schematron assumes XSLT/XPath 1.0 and if someone wishes to use a different binding language, they have to say that it isn't. While CVA doesn't need to be implemented in Schematron, it does use XSLT/XPath the same way that Schematron uses XSLT/XPath. I think I'd be more comfortable keeping CVA tied to XSLT/XPath 1.0 for at least CVA version 1.0, but if the committee decides to allow other language bindings, then I'll ask that we have the same language= as Schematron and default it to XSLT/XPath 1.0 and allow users to specify other binding languages. Examples of binding languages can be seen in ISO Schematron section 6.4: the default is "xslt" and the others are "stx, xslt1.1, exslt, xslt2, xpath, xpath2, and xquery. >I seem to remember this one being discussed, but I have forgotten the >reason. Since the CVA spec applies solely to genericode validation, why is >the word "genericode" not included in the title? It doesn't apply only to validation ... but the file format is specified to be pointing to genericode files. Can you suggest a new title? Perhaps "Context/Value Association Using Genericode"? >In the introduction, there is discussion of three levels of validation: >structure, value, co-constraints. You are citing 0.2 21 November in the subject line, but I can't see the discussion you are talking about. I thought that was removed. I'm reading the Introduction on pages 4 through 7. >But genericode only covers a fraction of >value constraints. For example, it does not cover a constraint that a value >must be between 100 and 299. This seems to be ignored in the discussion. Wouldn't that now be out of scope of a discussion of only the association of information items with genericode files? That was discussed in earlier versions of the document before the committee asked for the Schematron stuff to be removed. Have I left in some legacy references that should not be there? >I followed the link to Crane Softwrights resources at the bottom of page 7, >but did not find anything relevant initially. The link to the correct page >on the site needs to mention genericode and CVA. Good point! The page has just been updated. >I think the use of mixed model has been discussed. I hate it in this type of >document. I would only allow mixed model in external namespaces (such as >XHTML). It is easier to read and easier to process without it. Granted, and I've addressed this in the latest draft that I'm working on. There is now no mixed content for documentation. I'm using the same annotation constructs as in genericode. >CVA uses a relational model with separate ValueList and Contexts. I can see >that this saves text in rare cases where a masqueraded list has multiple >references, but otherwise it just complicates things. Is it necessary? I >would prefer to see the two combined into something like: >