RE: [w3c sml] On recognizing, handling, and constraining SML references

Please find the attached updated version of the proposal. The .doc file 
has the diffs; .html and .pdf versions don't show the diffs.

Most changes are in section 2. Question #3 in section 6 was split into its 
own section 7.

I also replaced all producer/consumer with author/processor. This is now 
shown in the diff, to avoid pollution. (But as you can see, it's already 
polluted.)



About Pratul's point #2, I just opened a bug:

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5040

We can handle this as part of this cluster, or not.

Thanks,
Sandy Gao
XML Technologies, IBM Canada
Editor, W3C XML Schema WG
Member, W3C SML WG
(1-905) 413-3255 T/L 969-3255
 



Pratul Dublish <Pratul.Dublish@microsoft.com> 
2007-09-05 08:47 PM

To
Sandy Gao/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
cc
"public-sml@w3.org" <public-sml@w3.org>, "public-sml-request@w3.org" 
<public-sml-request@w3.org>
Subject
RE: [w3c sml] On recognizing, handling, and constraining SML references






Hi Sandy
Thanks for the update.  A few comments that we can discuss in tomorrow?s 
call
 
1.       I do not recall that there was an agreement on (2). It is not 
clear how 2.1.3 can be implemented and I don?t see the need to talk about 
non-validator consumers in SML spec. Plus, I don?t understand why deref() 
must follow the rules for non-validator consumers even though deref() is 
used during model validation (e.g., in Schematron constraints and SML 
identity constraints)
2.       targetType and targetElement constraints should be treated as 
satisfied and not violated on null references (this is re the table in 
Section 6). Rationale: These constraints should be applied only on 
non-null references.
 
Pratul
 
From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On 
Behalf Of Sandy Gao
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 9:08 AM
To: Sandy Gao
Cc: public-sml@w3.org; public-sml-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: [w3c sml] On recognizing, handling, and constraining SML 
references
 

> Team, 
> 
> This is to start the discussion around many reference related bugs, 
> including 4658, 4673, 4682, 4683, 4780/4795, 4834, 4865, 4884, 4976.
> (4780 seems to be a duplicate of 4795.) 
> 
> I'm attaching both HTML and PDF. Pick your favorite format. :-) 

I've updated the proposal based on discussions we had during the F2F. Pick 
the format (HTML vs. PDF) and the flavor (plain vs. diffed) you like. 

My understanding about where we are: 
- We have agreement on sections 1, 2, 4, and 5. 
- We answered 2 out of 3 non-reference related questions (section 6). 
- Some members are not entirely certain about section 3. 
- The only other question we need to answer is "defaulted sml:ref" (in 
section 6). 




Thanks,
Sandy Gao
XML Technologies, IBM Canada
Editor, W3C XML Schema WG
Member, W3C SML WG
(1-905) 413-3255 T/L 969-3255