- From: Smith, Virginia (HP Software) <virginia.smith@hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 21:45:08 -0000
- To: <public-sml@w3.org>
This email is to start a discussion on document-based cycles vs. element-based cycles in SML. http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4639 In the current SML spec, there is a mismatch in that references are defined as pointing to elements and model cycles are defined based on documents. Since the concept is question (references) are based on elements, it makes sense to me that SML model cycles should be defined based on elements. I see 2 scenarios that pose a problem when testing for cycles according to the current spec. 1) Since a reference can point to an element defined in the same document as the reference, a cycle could exist within a single document but not appear as a cycle in a document-based graph. (false negative) 2) Let's say Document A contains a reference to element X in Document B and Document B contains a reference to element Y in Document A and elements X and Y are not related in any way. This is not really a cycle (of element references) but will appear as a cycle in a document-based graph. (false positive) I think we need to answer the following question: - Are there implementation-related reasons to support document-based graphs but not element-based graphs? (An SML validator implementation must be realistically achievable.) Does anyone have experience with implementing an SML validator (or know someone with relevant experience)? -- ginny ------------------------------------------- Virginia Smith HP Software / BTO R&D 916-785-9940 8000 Foothills Blvd | Roseville | CA 95747 www.hp.com/software
Received on Monday, 25 June 2007 21:45:34 UTC