• From: MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@a...>
• To: "xml-dev@l..." <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 17:52:44 +0900

Yes, SC34/WG4 has been struggling to make MCE easier
to understand and implement.  An informal working document is
available at
  https://www.assembla.com/spaces/IS29500/wiki/Semantics_of_MCE
and the publication schedule is shown in
  http://www.itscj.ipsj.or.jp/sc34/wg4/archive/sc34-wg4-2013-0255.zip

Regards,
Makoto


2013/4/10 Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@a...>:
> Yes, it does not seem right for most schema languages.
>
> This is because of their pass/fail or PSVI approaches.  Something is valid
> or invalid against a schema, rather than having a processing or semantic
> status assigned to it.
>
> I suppose DTDs and XSD can model "must accept"  by implying an attribute
> value to elements they know about.  Schematron can let you assign roles to
> assertions or patterns, typically error, warning, note,  and potentially
> other properties.
>
> The most commonly used standard way to do this is Microsoft's "secret
> weapon" for futureproofiing which is the MCE (Markup Compatability and
> Extensibility) spec. It is part of OOXML but used by them in many other
> places. There is no equivalent in ODF (I tried to propose adopting MCE but
> some mix of NIH and the reality of the more limited resources of the ODF
> developers was against it). ISO is currently rewriting the MCE to be more
> implementable, I believe.  MS has documentation on how they use it in OOXML
> at
>      http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/gg548604%28v=office.12%29.aspx
>
> For MCE,  the approach is to do things by markup rather than schemas.
> Primarily chunks or information units, not individual elements.  Makes
> sense.
>
>
> Cheers
> Rick

• References:
  • a puzzling schema promise
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: a puzzling schema promise
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@a...>