Sandy has agreed to this proposal (see the attached email), so I will go ahead and mark this bug as editorial tomorrow (11/6). Please speak up now if you disagree.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kumar Pandit
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 9:46 AM
To: Smith, Virginia (HP Software); public-sml@w3.org
Subject: RE: [Bug 5070] Requirement for validator to implement deref()
I agree. 'MUST support' sounds good. If everyone is ok with this, we can go with 'MUST support'.
-----Original Message-----
From: Smith, Virginia (HP Software) [mailto:virginia.smith@hp.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 3:46 PM
To: Kumar Pandit; public-sml@w3.org
Subject: RE: [Bug 5070] Requirement for validator to implement deref()
I'm ok with that. I assume that a reasonable interpretation of this
sentence is that a validator is free to make use of a 3rd party
implementation of the deref() function...
"MUST support" also sounds good.
--
g
-----Original Message-----
From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Kumar Pandit
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 1:54 PM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Cc: Kumar Pandit
Subject: RE: [Bug 5070] Requirement for validator to implement deref()
Team,
Do you agree with Pratul's modified proposal? Please speak up if you
disagree.
The validator MUST implement the deref() XPath extension function.
------- Comment #9 from kumarp@microsoft.com 2007-11-03 20:51 ------- I
agree that a validator must implement deref() but does not have to
expose it to other programs. This was not the intention when I wrote the
proposal. I can see that it could be interpreted that way. I believe
Pratul's suggested wording from comment# 8 is more precise.
The validator MUST implement the deref() XPath extension function.