RE: [w3c sml] Minutes for 2007-11-01 SML Telecon

Ginny,

Yes, that's what I heard you saying, and I just unconsciously made that = 
the scope proposal. :-)

To defend that a bit, the "scope" proposal doesn't require explicit 
scoping. It allows implicit (the default) scoping, which is the same as 
XML Schema behavior, to cover the case where keyrefs are defined close 
enough to the keys. So it is a true statement that the scope proposal 
covers both cases.

Thanks,
Sandy Gao
XML Technologies, IBM Canada
Editor, W3C XML Schema WG
Member, W3C SML WG
(1-905) 413-3255 T/L 313-3255
 



"Smith, Virginia (HP Software)" <virginia.smith@hp.com> 
2007-11-02 12:01 PM

To
Sandy Gao/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, <public-sml@w3.org>
cc

Subject
RE: [w3c sml] Minutes for 2007-11-01 SML Telecon






Sandy, 
 
The following minutes excerpt:
Ginny: 2 cases. one is keys already exist. if they match, then use them 
instead of copying them. the other is when the desired keys are not 
available, then new ones are defined.
... should cover both these cases. the "scope" proposal covers both cases. 
copying always sounds problematic.
 
should be:
Ginny: 2 cases. one is keys already exist. if they match, then use them 
instead of copying them. the other is when the desired keys are not 
available, then new ones are defined.
... should cover both these cases.  copying always sounds problematic. 
... suggest keeping "scope" attribute for when keys already exist (copying 
should not be required). Can still define new keys with the keyref when 
required keys don't exist. Should allow for both options.
 
 
--
ginny

From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On 
Behalf Of Sandy Gao
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 7:37 AM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: [w3c sml] Minutes for 2007-11-01 SML Telecon




Thanks,
Sandy Gao
XML Technologies, IBM Canada
Editor, W3C XML Schema WG
Member, W3C SML WG
(1-905) 413-3255 T/L 313-3255