RE: RE: [Bug 4675] add text in section 5.3.3 to require that consumers and producers are required to implement at a minimum the uri scheme

This is one interpretation I hadn't thought of, but at least it makes sense. I also like the format Sandy puts it in; it makes it very straight forward to understand. If there are no further issues or comments, I will make this change.

Jim
________________________________
From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sandy Gao
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 12:27 PM
To: Smith, Virginia (HP Software)
Cc: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: RE: RE: [Bug 4675] add text in section 5.3.3 to require that consumers and producers are required to implement at a minimum the uri scheme


According to our approved meeting minutes [1] (also accurately recorded in comment 4 of bug 4675 [2])

Resolution: both consumers and producers are required to support sml uri scheme; a producer should be able to produce IF using sml uri scheme; define 2 levels of conformance for the IF documents; mark the defect editorial

So I believe Ginny is right:
- All producers MUST be able to produce IF documents using URI scheme
- All consumers MUST be able to process IF documents using URI scheme
- IF documents using URI scheme for all SML references (and satisfy all other IF requirements) are level 2 conformant
- IF documents containing at least one SML reference that doesn't use URI scheme (and satisfy all other IF requirements) are level 1 conformant

This matches our decision as recorded in the minutes and (more importantly) makes a lot of sense (at least to me).

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sml/2007Oct/att-0114/f2f_10162007_minutes.html#item13
[2] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4675#c4

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>
Sent by: public-sml-request@w3.org

2007-10-30 03:25 PM

To
<public-sml@w3.org>
cc
Subject
RE: RE: [Bug 4675] add text in section 5.3.3 to require that  consumers  and producers are required to implement at a minimum the uri  scheme






I believe we agreed that consumers and producers are required to support
uri scheme - option 1.

--
ginny

-----Original Message-----
From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Lynn, James (HP Software)
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 7:32 AM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: RE: RE: [Bug 4675] add text in section 5.3.3 to require that
consumers and producers are required to implement at a minimum the uri
scheme



This actually leaves one point open (in terms of consensus):
1) All consumers need to accept and/or process sml:uri
       or
2) only Level 2 consumers need to accept and/or process sml:uri(just
like the producers).

I had thought we agreed on option 1, but this doesn't seem to be what
Kirk is saying.

J

-----Original Message-----
From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Lynn, James (HP Software)
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 9:21 AM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: RE: [Bug 4675] add text in section 5.3.3 to require that
consumers and producers are required to implement at a minimum the uri
scheme


This actually makes sense to me and would clear up the wording of the
original change I made to reflect the minutes (schema not scheme). If
nobody has further questions, I will go with that.

James Lynn

HP Software
610 277 1896


-----Original Message-----
From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 6:58 AM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: [Bug 4675] add text in section 5.3.3 to require that consumers
and producers are required to implement at a minimum the uri scheme


http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4675





------- Comment #12 from kirk.wilson@ca.com  2007-10-30 10:58 ------- I
thought that the conclusion we came to was that Level 1 conformance
meant conformance to the SML-IF schema (with an "a") and Level 2
conformance meant support for the sml:uri scheme by BOTH consumers and
producers.  (We back-tracked on the earlier decision that only producers
would have to support the sml:uri scheme once we adopted the 2 level
conformance standard.)