Re: Tag draft on ID and minimal Schema processing

Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com> writes:

> Henry Thompson writes:
>
>>> As I've written elsewhere, I didn't _intend_
>>> that 'may' as givingprocessor option, but that's
>>> what it says.
>
> I don't quite understand, did you presumably intend originally that
> processors MUST validate subtrees using the urType?

Possibly only with 20-20 hindsight, but yes, that's what I think my
intention was.

>>> For better or worse, we don't use MAY and
>>> MUST anywhere in the REC, all uses of 'may'
>>> and 'must' are normative.  That will change in 1.1.
>
> OK, but are we also proposing to take the specific "may" in question and
> make it a "MUST" for 1.1?  If not, I think that Chris' draft still needs a
> clarification (and even if so, he would probably need a forward reference
> to Schema 1.1, I think.)  Thanks.

Yes, I think we should -- there is no RQ for this in the Requirements
doc't at the moment, so something needs to be added as a candidate
(with a cross-reference to RQ-82, which is peripherally involved).

Suggested RQ:

  Make lax recursion required where it is now at processor option.

ht
-- 
  Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
                      Half-time member of W3C Team
     2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]

Received on Thursday, 9 October 2003 12:29:45 UTC