[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [ebxml-cppa] "IMPLIED" keyword
Further thought: In many cases, I think that the text in the CPPA spec is using the word IMPLIED as a circumlocution for "optional". Aside from the specific case of invocationLimit and concurrentConversations, where the correct word seems to be REQUIRED, IMPLIED in a DTD carries the notion that it's up to the XML application to figure out what to do if the attribute is missing, which is more than just "optional". For cases where the attribute might or might not be present, we still don't want to use the word OPTIONAL because if its RFC2119 implications for implementers. We will need a different circumlocution such as explicitily stating something like "(cardinality 0 or more). Regards, Marty ************************************************************************************* Martin W. Sachs IBM T. J. Watson Research Center P. O. B. 704 Yorktown Hts, NY 10598 914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287 Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com ************************************************************************************* ----- Forwarded by Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM on 10/02/2002 11:40 AM ----- Martin W Sachs To: ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org 10/02/2002 11:29 cc: AM From: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS Subject: "IMPLIED" keyword We may have a problem with the use of the IMPLIED keyword to describe attribute values in the text. I ran into a specific case (below) which makes me wonder whether it is correct to talk about IMPLIED for attributes when the validating document is a schema rather than a DTD. Is there any way of expressing the equivalent of IMPLIED in a schema? The specific case is the invocationLimit and concurrentConversations attributes of the ConversationConstraints element of the CPA. The text in section 9.5 is "an IMPLIED invocationLimit attribute" and "an IMPLIED conversationConstraints attribute". The CPPA Schema states: <attribute name="invocationLimit" type="int"/> <attribute name="concurrentConversations" type="int"/> Since both minOccurs and maxOccurs default to the value "1", it seems to me that these attributes are both REQUIRED, with no default stated. If I am right, someone should go through the text, check for any attributes described as IMPLIED, and correct the text to conform to the Schema. Regards, Marty ************************************************************************************* Martin W. Sachs IBM T. J. Watson Research Center P. O. B. 704 Yorktown Hts, NY 10598 914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287 Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com *************************************************************************************
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC