W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sml@w3.org > October 2007

RE: [bug 5040] Hanlding of reference constraints on different kinds of elements

From: Kumar Pandit <kumarp@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:03:02 -0700
To: "public-sml@w3.org" <public-sml@w3.org>
CC: Kumar Pandit <kumarp@windows.microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <D95F90884B51CF4F83E887862D5D3708DA8759FAA7@NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Sandy's ref proposal was incomplete with respect to this issue. I have added proposal to address that aspect. Please send your opinions if you disagree with the new proposal. The new proposal is to use Sandy's ref proposal combined with the following 2 values as defined.

------- Comment #3<http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5040> From Kumar Pandit<mailto:kumarp@microsoft.com> 2007-10-29 18:43:23 [reply<http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5040>] -------
Both '?' values in the table should be 'Violated'.

                Acyclic         targetRequired  targetElement   targetType
Unresolved      Satisfied       Violated        ?               ?

The targetElement/Type constraint says that the target element/type must be as
specified. We cannot evaluate targetElement/Type constraint for unresolved
references. We cannot obviously declare the model to be valid when we are not
able to check some constraints. Thus, the most logical choice is 'Violated'.

Note that we have already used this reasoning for targetRequired constraint
where we define the constraint to be violated for unresolved refs.

From: Kumar Pandit
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:19 PM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Cc: Kumar Pandit
Subject: [bug 5040] Hanlding of reference constraints on different kinds of elements

Please voice your concerns if you disagree with this proposal.

------- Comment #1<http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5040> From Kumar Pandit<mailto:kumarp@microsoft.com> 2007-10-24 03:11:42 [reply<http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5040>] -------
This should be marked as editorial since it is already covered by Sandy's ref
Received on Monday, 29 October 2007 19:10:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:24:23 UTC