RE: Issue 146 - Resolution & Bernd's Proposal

["Eckenfels. Bernd" <B.Eckenfels@seeburger.de>]

Hello Yaron,

while  we could use xsi:type= and go with the <variable> element, my suggestion was to have 3 variable Elements of different types. That would unfortunatelly require a schema change. As far as I can remeber XML Schema does no support choices for attribute groups, so there is no way to express the choice for the different variable types.

I am sorry that I have  missed the call, but yes I agree: lets split that up in your important and simple proposal for 146 and a potential new issue, which is not really that critical, since this isnt the only static expectation which is not explicitely coded in XML Schma.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Bernd Eckenfels
Chief Architect
--
SEEBURGER AG - Edisonstr.1 , D-75015 Bretten, Germany
Fax: +49 (0)7252 96-2400 - Phone: +49 (0)7252 96-1256
mailto:b.eckenfels@seeburger.de - http://www.seeburger.de


-----Original Message-----
From: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 2:37 AM
To: wsbpeltc; Eckenfels. Bernd
Subject: Issue 146 - Resolution & Bernd's Proposal


On the call today the group agreed to separate out Bernd's proposal from 
issue 146.

This means that issue 146 would only deal with the question - should 
tVariables inherit from tExtensibleElements?

The group agreed that Bernd's issues constituted a separate issue - 
should tVariables be altered to provide for tighter schema validation of 
the variable definitions?

The reason for separating out the issues is that they are independent of 
each other. Even if we tighten up the variable definition we should 
still inherit from tExtensibleElements.

Since Bernd's proposal would not have any normative changes it isn't 
clear to me if Bernd even needs to open an issue. I think he can just 
come up with a proposal and submit to the editor's directly. The change 
would be considered an editorial clean up, not a new feature.

	Thanks,

		Yaron