W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sml@w3.org > February 2008

[Bug 5306] SML-IF header information

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:59:38 +0000
To: public-sml@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1JP46E-0000He-Rw@wiggum.w3.org>


johnarwe@us.ibm.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|FIXED                       |

------- Comment #8 from johnarwe@us.ibm.com  2008-02-12 22:59 -------
The text subtly strayed from an assertion about the producer's intent to one
about the document itself (i.e. something independent of the producer).  

Let's say SMLIF's next version is called 1.2, and it is a compatible extension
of 1.1, so all 1.2-compliant documents are also 1.1-compliant.  Presumably the
matching section would say the conforming document version is 1.2.  If we state
a MUST about the document itself, then a 1.2-compliant document (which is also
1.1-compliant) MUST have two distinct values for the version, 1.1 AND 1.2, yet
the schema maxOccurs==1 (implicitly) since it is an attribute.

There are at least two easy outs here: 
(1) make version a multi-valued element (i.e. maxOccurs=unbounded) or 
(2) change the sentence as follows to make it a statement about the producer's

from: This value MUST be "1.1" for documents conforming 
      to the SML-IF 1.1 specification.
to:   This value MUST be "1.1" for documents declared by the producer to
      to the SML-IF 1.1 specification.

I propose #2 (mild preference), as it results in a more compact document when
used and requires only a text change, and a human noting the 1.2 compliance
assertion would either know or be able to determine via the specs the
relationship between compliance of a document with the asserted level and other
levels (in my example, this means knowing that every 1.2-compliant doc is also
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2008 22:59:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:56:09 UTC