OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

codelist message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [codelist] Re: Updated genericode specification

Regarding the conformance clause 4.4:

(1) - is it appropriate to include "must not be used as a de facto 
location URI" statements?  Is that not out-of-band of the specification?

(2) - "xml:base does not apply to canonical URIs" seems related to 
use, not specification

(3) - if we are to include "An application must ..." statements (I'm 
not sure we should) then the opening paragraph of 4.4 needs to be 
augmented with something like:  "including the following auxiliary 
rules imposed on a genericode instance or an application processing a 
genericode instance:"

The reason I'm hesitant about "An application must..." statement is 
that we aren't defining a specification like XSLT with a processor, 
we are defining a data format.  Is it up to the specification to 
impose such constraints on how the data is used?

(4) - perhaps change "The external reference must not be prefixed 
with a '#' symbol." to "The external reference must not begin with a 
'#' character." since the reference is not separate from the prefix 
(and I think "character" is more appropriate than "symbol")

Well done, Tony!  That certainly seems exhaustive.  But I think we 
need to discuss the inclusion of application behaviours.

For example, if the file at a LocationURI changes arbitrarily, that 
changes the conformance of a given genericode instance according to 
this conformance clause.  I think it is enough *for conformance* that 
the LocationURI be correctly formed regardless of what it points 
to.  What if, say, the user is acting locally without an Internet 
connection ... the content at the external location is unknown ... 
does this mean the conformance of his instance is unknown?

So does it make sense to only include in the conformance section 
clauses that apply to the instance as a standalone artefact, and move 
other issues to a "guidelines for applications" section and make it 

. . . . . . . . . . . Ken

At 2007-08-29 00:14 +0100, Anthony B. Coates (Miley Watts) wrote:

>I've now updated the example (specifically, the FpML example) and the
>table of contents:
>These are now ready for internal review by the TC, and then (depending on
>that review) for distributions for the 2nd public review.
>Cheers, Tony.

Upcoming public training: XSLT/XSL-FO Sep 10, UBL/code lists Oct 1
World-wide corporate, govt. & user group XML, XSL and UBL training
RSS feeds:     publicly-available developer resources and training
G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0    +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
Male Cancer Awareness Jul'07  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc
Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]