- From: Jordan Boucher <Jordan.Boucher@Sun.COM>
- Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 13:44:45 -0600
- To: Kumar Pandit <kumarp@windows.microsoft.com>
- Cc: "public-sml@w3.org" <public-sml@w3.org>
- Message-id: <C585A832-831A-4008-9E06-3EF63ECB4E65@sun.com>
+1 On May 7, 2008, at 7:50 PM, Kumar Pandit wrote: > We have a situation where not all valid SML models can be serialized > due to the way parts of SML-IF spec are written. This bug proposes > to remove the apparent disparity between what is allowed by the SML > spec and the SML-IF spec. Please reply to this email indicating > whether your agree with the proposal. > > From the bug: > ========= > The LC draft of SML-IF requires that an SML reference pointing to a > schema > document must be treated as unresolved. This is defined in section > “5.3.4 URI > Reference Processing” > (http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-sml-if-20080303/#URI_Processing). That > section > does not define what happens when an SML reference targets a rule > document. > > Proposal: > Allow a ref to target a schema doc as well as a rule doc. This does > not require > adding new verbiage. Just remove the existing text that defines this > restriction. > > Reasons: > 1. The member submission draft does not define any such restriction. > As far as > I know, we did not specifically take a separate decision on this. It > could also > have resulted due to an editor error. > 2. The SML spec itself does not place any restriction on where an > SML ref could > point to. It is valid for a model to have an SML ref pointing to a > schema/rule > doc. However, given the current SML-IF spec, there will be no way to > serialize > such a model into SML-IF. This would mean that not all SML models > can be > represented using SML-IF. This is clearly not what we intended. >
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2008 19:43:44 UTC