- From: Norman Walsh <Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 11:20:00 -0400
- To: John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
- Cc: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@datadirect-technologies.com>, Mike Champion <mc@xegesis.org>, public-qt-comments@w3.org, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
/ John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com> was heard to say:
| Jonathan Robie scripsit:
|
|> To me, the Infoset-only mapping in our document needs to be consistent with
|> the standard definition of XML. There are many ways we could decide to
|> doctor an Infoset or reinterpret it, and I think this is a dangerous path
|> to go down for mappings defined in our specifications.
|
| Well, if I understand Norm correctly, xsi:nil is to be interpreted in
| Infoset-only processing in any event, and it doesn't seem to me too much
As I said earlier today, I'm not sure we have consensus on xsi:nil
processing. But I had been persuaded (mostly by Jeni, as I recall) to
believe that we should get nilled from the PSVI property not the
attribute, so we would not support it in the infoset-only case.
Be seeing you,
norm
- --
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM | The great man is he who has not lost the
XML Standards Architect | heart of a child.--Mencius
Web Tech. and Standards |
Sun Microsystems, Inc. |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.7 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iD8DBQE+4LEgOyltUcwYWjsRAiG9AKCp04fp8yMYwDSquyJrRgnuPo29VACfR96A
+U+kMZytfzEy1xLrev6tpNo=
=Z/cl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Friday, 6 June 2003 11:21:39 UTC