Re: 5679 fix disparity between SML & SML-IF specs regarding SML ref targets

+1

On May 7, 2008, at 7:50 PM, Kumar Pandit wrote:

> We have a situation where not all valid SML models can be serialized  
> due to the way parts of SML-IF spec are written. This bug proposes  
> to remove the apparent disparity between what is allowed by the SML  
> spec and the SML-IF spec. Please reply to this email indicating  
> whether your agree with the proposal.
>
> From the bug:
> =========
> The LC draft of SML-IF requires that an SML reference pointing to a  
> schema
> document must be treated as unresolved. This is defined in section  
> “5.3.4 URI
> Reference Processing”
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-sml-if-20080303/#URI_Processing). That  
> section
> does not define what happens when an SML reference targets a rule  
> document.
>
> Proposal:
> Allow a ref to target a schema doc as well as a rule doc. This does  
> not require
> adding new verbiage. Just remove the existing text that defines this
> restriction.
>
> Reasons:
> 1. The member submission draft does not define any such restriction.  
> As far as
> I know, we did not specifically take a separate decision on this. It  
> could also
> have resulted due to an editor error.
> 2. The SML spec itself does not place any restriction on where an  
> SML ref could
> point to. It is valid for a model to have an SML ref pointing to a  
> schema/rule
> doc. However, given the current SML-IF spec, there will be no way to  
> serialize
> such a model into SML-IF. This would mean that not all SML models  
> can be
> represented using SML-IF. This is clearly not what we intended.
>