RE: [w3c sml] [4682] Attribute based reference schemes

+1 for this recommendation as well.

 

May I suggest that for the call on Thurs, the chairs prepare a list of
issues that have been agreed to by silent responses (silent responders
are probably losing track of what they have been silently agreeing to)
and list of issues that have NOT yet been resolved by email.  I would
point to two in the latter category: sml:keyref reference to
xs:key/xs:unique (I, with Sandy's assistance, have a proposal "out
there" on that), and the EPR scheme issue (which should generate some
more discussion based on Valentina's and my latest exchange).

 

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 John Arwe
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 7:13 PM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: Re: [w3c sml] [4682] Attribute based reference schemes

 


+1 for no constraints on reference scheme definitions (remember Sandy
has evil cases too... no attributes or elements required), which
includes allowing attribute-based schemes 

Best Regards, John

Street address: 2455 South Road, Poughkeepsie, NY USA 12601
Voice: 1+845-435-9470      Fax: 1+845-432-9787 



Pratul Dublish <Pratul.Dublish@microsoft.com> 
Sent by: public-sml-request@w3.org 

09/07/2007 12:03 AM 

To

"public-sml@w3.org" <public-sml@w3.org> 

cc

 

Subject

[w3c sml] [4682] Attribute based reference schemes

 

 

 




All 
This is an attempt to instigate consensus on this bug. In his excellent
writeup on the references, Sandy has proposed that attribute-based
reference schemes be supported.  FYI, sml:uri was originally an
attribute and it was changed to an element to support extension points.
Subsequently, the private SML WG decided to support element-based
schemes only for the sake of uniformity. 
  
Please speak up now if you disagree with Sandy's proposal. 
  
Thanks! 
Pratul