RE: RE: [Bug 4675] add text in section 5.3.3 to require that consumers and producers are required to implement at a minimum the uri scheme

This actually leaves one point open (in terms of consensus):
1) All consumers need to accept and/or process sml:uri
        or
2) only Level 2 consumers need to accept and/or process sml:uri(just like the producers).

I had thought we agreed on option 1, but this doesn't seem to be what Kirk is saying.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Lynn, James (HP Software)
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 9:21 AM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: RE: [Bug 4675] add text in section 5.3.3 to require that consumers and producers are required to implement at a minimum the uri scheme


This actually makes sense to me and would clear up the wording of the original change I made to reflect the minutes (schema not scheme). If nobody has further questions, I will go with that.

James Lynn

HP Software
610 277 1896


-----Original Message-----
From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 6:58 AM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: [Bug 4675] add text in section 5.3.3 to require that consumers and producers are required to implement at a minimum the uri scheme


http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4675





------- Comment #12 from kirk.wilson@ca.com  2007-10-30 10:58 ------- I thought that the conclusion we came to was that Level 1 conformance meant conformance to the SML-IF schema (with an "a") and Level 2 conformance meant support for the sml:uri scheme by BOTH consumers and producers.  (We back-tracked on the earlier decision that only producers would have to support the sml:uri scheme once we adopted the 2 level conformance standard.)