[Bug 5306] SML-IF header information


------- Comment #3 from kirk.wilson@ca.com  2008-01-17 15:06 -------
Initial Responses to John's comments item #2:

Based on http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4774#c18 and the
proposed move of schemaComplete into this header section, this header becomes
required not optional.
RESPONSE: My apologies, I had completely forgotten about that decision.  You
are correct.  I did not intend to go back on that decision.  (I would point out
that the SML-IF states that "It is necessary...".  The text should be rephrased
to use the normative langage of RFC 2119).

Conformance level as a non-extensible string enumeration strikes me as overly
constraining.  Given your Qname vs URI discussion, seems like it should be a
URI (IRI) not a string, which also makes it extensible.  Strings are fine for
human-readable specs, less so for concepts targeted to automated processing.
RESPONSE: Conformance levels depend on what is defined in SML-IF 5.1.  I should
have used "Level 1" and "Level 2" (or "Full" and "Minimal"), but I was
anticipating changing those as per my comment on
4675:http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4675#c28.  I would be more
than happy if the SML-IF defined URIs for these levels of conformance!

Version is something I don't remember discussing.  What is it, what is its
semantic, what value should a producer place in it, how would a consumer use
it, what is its syntax, what implicit assumptions about its use might be buried
in that syntax, etc.
RESPONSE: SML-IF version was mentioned in issue description below.  I agree,
more thought might be given to this if we decide to proceed.

Clarification: refScheme URI is present once for each ref scheme both known to
the producer and used anywhere in the IF?  
A consumer uses this how?
RESPONSE: Perhaps to determine what modules for reference scheme processing
might need to loaded to process the document.

Explain to me again what schemaComplete has to do with wideness or degree of
RESPONSE See third bullet in the Interoperability of SML models section in

Received on Thursday, 17 January 2008 15:06:37 UTC