Re: [Bug 7695] Conformance

Michael Sperberg-McQueen wrote:

> In that case, I don't understand your taking the position
> that the current definition of minimal conformance
> requires full exposure of the PSVI.

I was trying to say that it would be >plausible< to read the existing text 
as requiring that.  It's not what I thought we meant to say, and it's not 
IMO the only plausible reading.  Then again, in appendix C we now go to 
some trouble to make clear that "Conforming processors may provide access 
to some or all of this information", and the chapter 2.4 wording on 
minmimal conformance seems to be intentionally different.  In that sense, 
the XSD 1.1 2.4 wording is >more< suggestive of a requirement for full 
exposure than the same wording was in XSD 1.0.

Anyway, it seems that we agree on the significant points, which is good.

Noah

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








"C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>
Sent by: www-xml-schema-comments-request@w3.org
10/07/2009 06:38 PM
 
        To:     noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
        cc:     "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>, 
www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
        Subject:        Re: [Bug 7695] Conformance



On 7 Oct 2009, at 16:34 , noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

> Michael Sperberg-McQueen writes:
>
>> Just for the record, this member of the WG never believed any
>> distinction was intended.
>
> Nor did I.

In that case, I don't understand your taking the position
that the current definition of minimal conformance
requires full exposure of the PSVI.

Michael

-- 
****************************************************************
* C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Black Mesa Technologies LLC
* http://www.blackmesatech.com
* http://cmsmcq.com/mib
* http://balisage.net
****************************************************************

Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2009 23:27:22 UTC