W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sml@w3.org > October 2007

RE: [Bug 4639] Allow cycle checking on element graphs as well as document graphs

From: Smith, Virginia (HP Software) <virginia.smith@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:06:16 -0000
Message-ID: <4ED4BEA3C04CAF4C8F9BEE10116D2E300355544C@G3W0067.americas.hpqcorp.net>
To: <public-sml@w3.org>

I like Kirk's revised definition. 

No, we didn't decide to re-introduce the sml:ref="true". That was just
me trying to make sense of the new syntax. It could be left out, in
which case the presence of sml:acyclic would be ignored, I suppose. But
then the document author would have to remember to add the sml:ref =
true in the instance document when the sml:acyclic is actually defined
in the schema. This mismatch doesn't make sense to me.

--
ginny

-----Original Message-----
From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 8:39 AM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: [Bug 4639] Allow cycle checking on element graphs as well as
document graphs


http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4639





------- Comment #7 from kirk.wilson@ca.com  2007-10-26 14:38 ------- I
would like to suggest a small editorial change to the definition of
cycle. 
(If you omit the phrase in commas in the current definition, the
definition no longer makes sense, and the temporal "when" offends my
sense that this is structural definition).  Suggested revision is quite
simple:

A cycle is formed for an element E if the path that is formed by
recursively following an SML reference that is a descendant of E to its
target leads back to E.

Also, I don't recall that part of the discussion at the F2F reintroduced
the sml:ref="true" attribute at the schema level (as represented in
Proposals 2 & 3).  Was this reintroduced during the subsequent
conference call?
Received on Friday, 26 October 2007 16:04:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:56:07 UTC