Re: [provision] Overlap between spec and profile docs.

[Darran Rolls <Darran.Rolls@Sun.COM>]

At the high level, we should not allow inconsistencies to exist between 
MUST/SHOULD in core and anything defined in the profiles.  If this 
potential exists, we should consider leaving out of core and making 
explicit in profile.  Right?

Darran

Gary P Cole wrote:

> 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.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: provision-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: provision-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>