[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Overlap between spec and profile docs.
I'm thinking about XPath at the moment, but I think the issue is broader. We've agreed that an SPMLv2 provider MUST support XPath 2.0 abbreviated location paths (and MAY support arbitrary XPath expressions), but where does this language belong? I want to describe XPath in the specification (because XPath and the requirement to support abbreviated location paths seems general), but one might argue that the issue of XPath support is specific to the XSD profile. I'm not trying to argue that specific point right now--I'm after something else. If we *assume* for the moment that XPath is irrelevant to the DSML profile, then should the specification (or should the XSD profile) describe Xpath support? Suppose that we decide that a certain aspect of behavior should be described in the specification--because we believe that the requirement is general (or is general enough to apply to more than one profile). Should a specific profile be allowed to override the specification in any way it sees fit, or should a profile only be allowed to *add to* the specification? Other standards groups have probably already tackled questions like these. PSTC members (with more experience than I have) may already know the convention. If so, please share.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]