RE: [Bug 4682] Attribute based reference schemes

Done.

-----Original Message-----
From: Pratul Dublish
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 3:28 PM
To: Kumar Pandit; public-sml@w3.org; sandygao@ca.ibm.com
Subject: RE: [Bug 4682] Attribute based reference schemes

I agree with Sandy - we should not limit reference schemes to use elements/attributes.

Kumar - I suggest that you go ahead and make the change. If there is any disagreement on this, we can discuss in tomorrow's call

-----Original Message-----
From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Kumar Pandit
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 2:19 PM
To: public-sml@w3.org; sandygao@ca.ibm.com
Cc: Kumar Pandit
Subject: RE: [Bug 4682] Attribute based reference schemes


Good catch Sandy. I don't see any issue with the updated text you proposed. If other WG members are ok with it, I can go ahead and make the change.

Does anyone disagree with the text suggested by Sandy? If I don't hear otherwise soon, I will make the change later today so that it can go into the second draft.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 10:35 AM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: [Bug 4682] Attribute based reference schemes


http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4682


sandygao@ca.ibm.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|FIXED                       |




------- Comment #5 from sandygao@ca.ibm.com  2007-09-19 17:34 -------
The change mentioned in comment #4 answer the immediate question about schemes
that use attributes, but the new text is assuming that schemes will always uses
some elements or attribute, which as far as I know has not been adopted as a
requirement for defining a scheme.

One example we discussed before is a scheme that always resolves to the root
element of the current document, where it doesn't depend on either elements or
attributes.

And a scheme may want to define its behavior in terms of a processing
instruction, which would seem to be a perfectly valid scheme.

Suggest to use something similar to:

"A reference scheme normally uses, but is not required to use, child elements,
attributes or both to capture ..."

Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2007 23:40:57 UTC