[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [obix] RE: Obix question
Sorry for the spam, but by the way, I think the same issue applies to the example in 4.6 as well. <enum range=”/enums/OffSlowFast” val=”slow”/> should also have null=”false” in it. I think these examples may have presupposed the exclusive relationship, although to my knowledge that is not formally
expressed in the spec. I will be sure to check though. Thanks again for the comment! Craig From: obix@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:obix@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Gemmill, Craig Hi Jochen- It sounds like the issue is that 4.17 states that <abstime> defaults to null, but then 4.7 supplies an example <abstime> that provides a value but does NOT
clear the default null setting, leading to a confusing interpretation that the example has a ‘meaningful’ value but is still null. Is that a correct interpretation? As far as correcting this, my intent would be that the example in 4.7 would read: <abstime val=”2005-03-09T13:30:00Z” null=”false”/> But this begs what I have seen as a bigger question, which is about the coexistence of ‘null’ and a value. Can an <obj> have a value and still be null? I
think the spec is unfortunately ambiguous on that matter. I would like to see it clarified. More specifically, I would like to see it clarified that having a value and being ‘null’ are exclusive conditions. In other words, for these six object definitions,
all of which (I think) are permitted under the 1.0 spec: 1.
<real> 2.
<real null=”true”/> 3.
<real null=”false”/> 4.
<real val=”0.0” null=”true”/> 5.
<real val=”0.0” null=”false”/> 6.
<real val=”0.0”/> I would propose the following statements/clarifications. 1 and 3 are equivalent (because null defaults to false), and also an error, because an object must either have a value or be null. 2 is an example of a non-valued
null object. 4 is an error, because an object cannot both have a value and be null. 5 is redundant, since null is by default false; it is also equivalent to 6. Thanks for identifying this! Craig From:
obix@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:obix@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Toby Considine Well, Working Draft 06 (WD06) is a working draft, so it is not surprising there are errors. Comments like this should go to the TC, where they can be seen and discussed by all, and where the editor can fix them… Thanks tc "If something is not worth doing, it`s not worth doing well " -- Peter Drucker
From: Jochen Burkhardt [mailto:jburk@de.ibm.com]
Hello Tony,
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]