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

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

From: Smith, Virginia (HP Software) <virginia.smith@hp.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:25:11 -0000
Message-ID: <4ED4BEA3C04CAF4C8F9BEE10116D2E30035B96E4@G3W0067.americas.hpqcorp.net>
To: <public-sml@w3.org>

I believe we agreed that consumers and producers are required to support
uri scheme - option 1.

--
ginny

-----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 7:32 AM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: 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.)
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2007 19:23:30 UTC

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