|Subject:||RE: [tag] RE: May24 TAML PDF review - Update|
|From:||Jacques Durand (JDur...@us.fujitsu.com)|
|Date:||Jun 2, 2011 4:00:07 pm|
Most comments make sense to me.
See inline <JD> for those that may need alternative solution to what you
-----Original Message----- From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:denn...@acm.org] Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 8:44 PM To: TAG TC List Subject: [tag] RE: May24 TAML PDF review - Update
On p.6, last paragraph of section 2.1, I now wonder about the use of "declared"
for elements. I think elements are expressed. I think this might do better:
"Elements 'testAssertion', 'testAssertionSet', and 'testAssertionDocumentHeader'
are global elements and can be top-level elements in a TAML markup instance
(e.g., be root elements of an XML document). All other TAML elements are local
in a markup instance under the TAML schema (i.e., are descendant children of a
global element as provided by the schema).".
On page 7, new text about extensions near the top of the DIFF page. There are a
couple of things.
In the second section, I think "At the exception ..." should be "With the
exception ... ."
The last sentence of the addition begins with "Note that ..." and then has a
normative statement. That sentence can be removed.
With regard to the allowance of TAML markup in <taml:common>, ...
<taml:comment>, and the restriction on child elements, I think a better wording
is needed. I will look at that separately.
<JD> will add new 4th level subsections, but keep intro text before RelaxNG.
On p.7 last sentence, "relative of their containing element" should be "relative
to their containing element"
p.8 Example - there should be a non-normative reference to the NIEM
specification. Thanks for expanding the abbreviation. Is there a specific
specification that can be referenced in the non-normative section?
p.10 top of page, this is talking about the <derivedSourceItem> element but
there is no accompanying Compact Relax NG definition as a lead-in. There seems
to be somethiing out of order here, in comparison to how all of the other
notions have a preceding Compact Relax NG definition that is further explained
with subsequent prose.
<JD> We say: "The compact Relax NG definition of taml:derivedSourceItem is same
as for taml:refSourceItem", and we mentioned that. So no need for a separate
p.10 Starting with the Compact Relax NG definition for <taml:comment>, the
descriptive text is now in front of the Relax NG rather than after it as in the
preceding descriptions. I suggest that the description be after the Compact
Relax NG definition for the respective element. (That is, the new paragraphs
are good but should be after the Relax NG.) I must have misled you with one of
my previous coments.
p.14 2.3.10 second paragraph below the schema. HTML cannot be used. HTML
markup is not well-formed XML, doesn't have namespaces, etc. Try "can be a
mixture of text and XML elements."
p.15 first sentence below the bulleted list. I don't think we should allow
unqualified further values to be added. We should use the same QName condition
that is used for extensions to the value of 'label'.
<JD> but that looks bad when you display the set of possible values in a test
report: you don't want some to be qualified and some not. In tamelizer open
source, we use a few extra values like "warning", "missingInput", etc. Frankly I
don't want to qualify these... One way out is to add/define these in TAML spec
as additions that @label *may* allow (so they remain unqualified, and everything
beyond these must be qualified). Otherwise if we unqualify all extensions, it
appears we need to do same for prescription/@level extensions. At the very
least, @lable should not be NCName but normalizedString (if it is to accept
either qualified or unqualified extensions).
pp.14. <taml:tag> is an element. I just noticed that it has an @name
attribute. Is this defined the same way as the other use of @name, and if not,
shouldn't we differentiate them (for future cases where we want to allow
taml:name in non-TAML instances, such as RDF).
<JD> So it appears that we may have to rename:
Tag/@name --> tag/@tname
var/@name --> var/@vname
testAssertionSet/@name --> testAssertionSet/@setname (we already have @setid)
I think this should reference section 2.5.
<JD> good point - in fact, I noticed that the text used for 2.5 in the markup is
already in the TA model (3.2.12, with Tag subsection), so a brief recap in the
markup taml:tag section is sufficient, with a reference to the Model section.
Then we can entirely remove Section 2.5.
pp. 17-18. Section 2.5.1 I don't understand how or why we are lapsing into
this notation, which is not used anywhere else for TAML.
Shouldn't we just say that NormativeProperty is a reserved taml:tag/@name value,
and what the text of the element signifies?
LIkewise with 2.5.2. And in the definition for taml:tab/@name="VersionDrop" I
think the definition is not accurate (e.g., a number lower than VersionAdd would
qualify). Perhaps "the numerical version number, if any, beyond which the test
assertion does NOT apply".
** end of second-review notes **
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: