[DDI-SRG] DDI 1/2.x DTD / XSchema discrepency

[Pascal Heus]

Sanda:
Thanks for the fedback. I'll be traveling in a few hours... should be 
able to take care of this next week and commit the changes to CVS. Will 
keep you posted so it can then be reflected on the web site.
best
*P

Sanda Ionescu wrote:
>
> Pascal,
>
> I think you can just go ahead and make the change - no need to file a bug.
> Both xml-lang and xml:lang should be enabled for all versions 1 
> through 2.1 (although historically the change has only been brought in 
> version 2.1 )
> At some point somebody just made a typo in the DTD and as a quick and 
> easy fix we decided to enable both variants to avoid getting invalid 
> documents, or having to go back and look for instances that might have 
> been invalid. This change was filed as a bug at the time, and approved.
> The schemas were just not correctly generated. That's why there are 
> discrepancies. We found many errors in those schemas and have 
> consistently been advising people to always refer to the DTDs as the 
> authoritative files.
> Sanda.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pascal Heus [mailto:pascal.heus at gmail.com]
> Sent: Mon 7/14/2008 8:39 AM
> To: DDI Structural Reform Working Group.; Mary Vardigan; Sanda Ionescu
> Subject: DDI 1/2.x DTD / XSchema discrepency
>
> All:
> I recently noticed that the DTD and XSchema of the DDI 1.2.2 and 1.3
> specifications published under the official URL have a small
> discrepency:  in the DTD, the <codeBook> element definition  contains
> both and an xml-lang and an xml:lang attributes. This however is not
> carried over in the XSchema definition where the xml:lang does not
> appear. See for example:
> http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/DDI/Version1-2-2.dtd
> http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/DDI/Version1-2-2.xsd
> This actually caused the DDI produced by the latest version of the
> Nesstar Publisher (not yet released) to produce DDI-XML that did not
> properly validate (though being correct). I have notified the developers
> and they have switched to the xml-lang attribute. This is however
> something we may want to correct in the published schemas.
> Also checked 1.02 and in that one both xml-lang and xml:lang are missing
> from the schema For 1.01 and 1.0, only the xml:lang exists in the DTD
> and is missing from the schemas.
> The 2.0 and 2.1 xsd files do not have this problem.
> How should we proceed to have these issues fixed in both CVS and on
> under the official http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/DDI/* URL's? Can we simply
> make the change or do we need to file an official bug?
> best
> *P
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/pipermail/ddi-srg/attachments/20080714/e4fa9736/attachment.html