RE: [xri] <Type>

[Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com>]

I don't think we need to say anything other than explicitly allow empty values. A protocol can use a property with empty value to indicate type. At the end, it makes no difference because a client will need to understand both the property type (URI) and its value semantics. If anything, I expect this change to have an immediate impact on most current examples of the <Type> element, breaking the type URIs into a key component and a value component.

For example:

<Type>http://example.com/some/spec/version/1.0</Type>

Will most likely now be declared as:

<Property type="http://example.com/some/spec/version";>1.0</Property>

Almost every example I can think of can and should be broken up like this.

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Cantor [mailto:cantor.2@osu.edu]
> Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 1:30 PM
> To: 'Drummond Reed'
> Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xri] <Type>
> 
> Drummond Reed wrote on 2009-11-07:
> > Yes, that works fine too, as long as we _explicitly_ define that as
> the
> > semantics of a <Property> that has no value.
> 
> I'd definitely argue against empty values that mean something other
> than
> "empty value" (and note that in XML, empty does not mean "nil", there's
> an
> xsi:nil for that).
> 
> -- Scott
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php