[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [xmile-comment] Issue with XMILE schema
Hi Karim,Sorry, I have to correct you. Per OASIS rules, if there is a discrepancy between the documentation in a spec and a schema, the schema is authoritative. So I think you definitely want to fix this.As Paul notes in his email, the way to do this is via an errata.Best,/chetOn Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 6:22 PM, Karim Chichakly <kchichakly@iseesystems.com> wrote:KarimBest regards,Hi Robert,The schema was largely developed before the final spec. We tried to update it to match, but apparently missed that part. "interval" is correct, as per the spec. [The spec is definitive, the schema suggestive. We should update the schema.]On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 2:10 PM, Robert Ward <codecraftsman1@gmail.com> wrote:In section 6.4.4, the standard document requires that reports support an attribute named "interval", but in the schema, this attribute is named "report_interval". As a work-around, I suggest that implementations should serialize models using the attribute name "interval", but recognize both "interval" and "report_interval" as synonyms for the same attribute when deserializing models. It would help reduce potential issues between hand-written and generated parsers, if the published schema was either corrected, or modified to allow either symbol.I have encountered a disagreement between the XMILE standard document and the published XMILE schema.
--Robert Ward
Software Engineer
This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avast.com--
/chet
----------------
Chet Ensign
Director of Standards Development and TC Administration
OASIS: Advancing open standards for the information society
http://www.oasis-open.org
Primary: +1 973-996-2298
Mobile: +1 201-341-1393
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]