RE: [w3c sml] Minutes for 2007-11-01 SML Telecon

Actually, I believe the proposal does require explicit binding, since
the proposal as I submitted it (and contrary to an early draft that I
sent Sandy and Kumar) makes use of the scope attribute mandatory, i.e.,
required="true".  In my verbal comments right before I had to cut out of
the teleconf (and this should probably be in the minutes), I suggested
that we might go back to the original proposal (to 4684) and make the
scope attribute optional, in which case the omission of the scope
attribute would default to XML Schema behavior.  Or we could specify a
means by which the scope attribute could deref to the current element.

 

Kirk Wilson, Ph.D.
Research Staff Member

CA Labs

603 823-7146

 

________________________________

From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Sandy Gao
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 12:17 PM
To: Smith, Virginia (HP Software)
Cc: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: RE: [w3c sml] Minutes for 2007-11-01 SML Telecon

 


Ginny, 

Yes, that's what I heard you saying, and I just unconsciously made that
= the scope proposal. :-) 

To defend that a bit, the "scope" proposal doesn't require explicit
scoping. It allows implicit (the default) scoping, which is the same as
XML Schema behavior, to cover the case where keyrefs are defined close
enough to the keys. So it is a true statement that the scope proposal
covers both cases.

Thanks,
Sandy Gao
XML Technologies, IBM Canada
Editor, W3C XML Schema WG <http://www.w3.org/XML/Schema/> 
Member, W3C SML WG <http://www.w3.org/XML/SML/> 
(1-905) 413-3255 T/L 313-3255




"Smith, Virginia (HP Software)" <virginia.smith@hp.com> 

2007-11-02 12:01 PM 

To

Sandy Gao/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, <public-sml@w3.org> 

cc

 

Subject

RE: [w3c sml] Minutes for 2007-11-01 SML Telecon

 

 

 




Sandy, 
  
The following minutes excerpt: 
Ginny: 2 cases. one is keys already exist. if they match, then use them
instead of copying them. the other is when the desired keys are not
available, then new ones are defined.
... should cover both these cases. the "scope" proposal covers both
cases. copying always sounds problematic. 
  
should be: 
Ginny: 2 cases. one is keys already exist. if they match, then use them
instead of copying them. the other is when the desired keys are not
available, then new ones are defined.
... should cover both these cases.  copying always sounds problematic. 
... suggest keeping "scope" attribute for when keys already exist
(copying should not be required). Can still define new keys with the
keyref when required keys don't exist. Should allow for both options. 
  
  
-- 
ginny 

________________________________

From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Sandy Gao
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 7:37 AM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: [w3c sml] Minutes for 2007-11-01 SML Telecon




Thanks,
Sandy Gao
XML Technologies, IBM Canada
Editor, W3C XML Schema WG <http://www.w3.org/XML/Schema/> 
Member, W3C SML WG <http://www.w3.org/XML/SML/> 
(1-905) 413-3255 T/L 313-3255