[sc34wg3] Part 4: Canonicalization

[Martin Bryan]

Kal

> Thanks for your comments. My apologies for taking a while to get to
> replying.

No problem - we're all busy.

Re your proposal
> > 4.1
> > In second para change "set to the element" by "a reference to the
element"
> >
>
> It is unclear, but I'm not sure that I like using the term "reference".
> How about
>
> "The value of the [parent] property of an element information item must
> always be the element or document information item of which the element
> information item is a direct child."

My problem with this is that it sounds as if the value of the property must
be surround the element. I see this as [parent="<element>....</element>]. I
used reference because what the property should contain is a pointer to the
element, not the element itself.

4.9
> The W3C XML Information Set Recommendation says:
>
> "The terms "information set" and "information item" are similar in
> meaning to the generic terms "tree" and "node", as they are used in
> computing. However, the former terms are used in this specification to
> reduce possible confusion with other specific data models. Information
> items do not map one-to-one with the nodes of the DOM or the "tree" and
> "nodes" of the XPath data model."
>
> Does that make sense ? It does to me, but I want to be sure that it does
> to other readers.

It makes sense, but needs to be spelt out in the standard, rather than
expect readers to know arcane aspects of a referenced standard.
>
> > 4.11
> How about adding an initial subclause (after 4.1)
>
> A reference to a topic information item shall be the integer value of
> the position of that topic information item in the canonically sorted
> [topics] property value of the topic map information item. The integer
> value of the position of the first topic information item in the sorted
> list shall be 1. All integer values shall be encoded in the XML Infoset
> as an unpadded, string representation of the integer using decimal
> notation.

Fine

> And then change 4.11 item 2 to:
>
> 2. [normalized value] A reference to the topic information item that is
> the value of the [type] property.
>
> Note that this relies on the reader understanding the clear distinction
> between the word "reference" in the context of this specification and
> any notion of "reference" in parts 2 or 3. If there is a better term to
> use to make this absolutely clear, I am open to suggestions.

Why not just say clearly:
"2. [normalized value] The position of the topic information item that is
the value of the [type] property within the sorted list of topics.

Martin