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

[Bug 5406] Use "model validator" term consistently; drop "conforming"

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 04:56:51 +0000
CC:
To: public-sml@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1JRKXD-0001vI-9B@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5406





------- Comment #13 from kumarp@microsoft.com  2008-02-19 04:56 -------
+1 for the changes except for the following:

[1]
"4.2.5 Null SML References" still uses the term 'processors' instead of
'validators'.

[2]
I agree with comment# 12 by Kirk. Proposed change:

from:
If a non-null SML reference contains multiple reference schemes, ...

to:
If a non-null SML reference is recognized as an instance of multiple reference
schemes, ...

[3]
I agree with comment# 9 by John about deref().

The deref() function as currently spec'ed is not aligned with model validation
(for example, deref() is allowed to not resolve any scheme). Requiring model
validators to support it as spec'ed will create inconsistent validation
results.

we should either go back to the original wording or clarify the role of deref()
during validation.

[4]
SML-IF should be consistent with SML in terms of declarative usage. I am not
sure why some changes conflict with this.

for example, the change:

from:
The value of {base URI} is computed as follows:

to:
SML-IF consumers MUST compute the value of {base URI} as follows:

If there is a good reason for this, then we should use this in both specs. Just
to clarify, I do not have a strong bias towards either form. Either is ok with
me as long as it is consistently used in both specs.
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2008 04:56:57 UTC

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