Re: [regrep] [RS Issue] Need clarification on comment on line 1410

["Goran Zugic" <gzugic@ebxmlsoft.com>]

Duane,

That's good idea. I think that during our last meeting Ivan accepted to 
start the work on the Registry user guide.

Regards,
Goran

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Duane Nickull" <dnickull@adobe.com>
To: "Goran Zugic" <gzugic@ebxmlsoft.com>
Cc: "Farrukh Najmi" <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>; <regrep@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: [regrep] [RS Issue] Need clarification on comment on line 1410


> Goran:
>
> That probably depends on the type of reference.  If it is a reference
> (association) of "supercedes", it probably should not be deprecated.  On
> the other hand, if it is a reference as "includes", that is another
> matter.
>
> I guess this is a wake up call for a good set of user guides ;-)
>
> Duane
>
> Goran Zugic wrote:
>
>> I like Duane's idea as well. However, I also think that in a such case we
>> should also (automatically) deprecate all objects that reference the
>> deprecated object. For example, it doesn't make sense to keep an
>> Association with a "valid" status (approved) that references a deprecated
>> object. It raises another question related to the  RS specs. What is the
>> reason that we don't deprecate objects that reference objects that were
>> deprecated after their creation?
>
> <SNIP>
>
> -- 
> ***********
> Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com
> Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - http://www.unece.org/cefact/
> Enterprise Server Products - http://www.adobe.com/enterprise/main.html
> ***********
>
>