- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 21:03:44 +0000
- To: public-sml@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5740 Summary: Inconsistent requirements for using PSVI after 5541 adopted Product: SML Version: LC Platform: PC OS/Version: Windows XP Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: Core AssignedTo: cmsmcq@w3.org ReportedBy: johnarwe@us.ibm.com QAContact: public-sml@w3.org We agreed to open this bug as part of the 6/12 working group call. As a result of http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5541 , there is an inconsistency in the spec between the (new with 5541) conformance requirement http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5541#c14 proposal [2] and existing text in section 4.1.1, which currently reads: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2007/xml/sml/build/sml.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#URI_Reference_Scheme > It is implementation-defined whether to use the XML Infoset [XML Information > Set] or the Post Schema Validation Infoset (PSVI) [XML Schema Structures] for > SML reference identification. Using the XML Infoset enables SML reference > identification without relying on XML Schema validation. Using the PSVI makes > it possible to identify SML references using schema defaulted sml:ref > attributes. There was a suggestion on the call to remove the entire paragraph to fix this. While the last 2 sentence above were substantially preserved ( http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5541#c14 proposal [1]), the proposed removal of the first sentence concerned several members. The concern was based on their reading of that the existing text applies to two classes of SML implementations, those that validate models (SML validators) and those that do not (model processors, assuming the proposal in http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5715#c2 is accepted, see http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=554 ); their reading of the solution adopted by 5541, if the excerpted paragraph above was also removed, is that the requirement of the first sentence would no longer apply to model processors (it would clearly still apply to SML validators by virtue of 5541 C14 proposal [2]). Some members preferred to continue to impose a requirement on model processors that are not also SML validators to document their choice of infoset when recognizing SML references. They acknowledged that doing so is insufficient to guarantee interoperability of systems built using model processors in general, however they perceived value in giving the constructors of those systems another tool (in this case, the documentation of infoset that "impl-defined" imposes) useful in successfully building working systems out of non-SML-validating model processors. Others were unclear that this had sufficient value to include in the spec, given all the other ways in which the spec allows non-SML-validating model processors can be non-interoperable. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2008 21:04:20 UTC