Well, I guess I shouldn't have gone to
Singapore (working) and missed the meeting last week...
I now understand this is to avoid breaking applications that
expect this behavior - but I have conformance and description
questions.
The answers should inform editing of the text, and also some must
appear in the conformance section.
(1) the wording is clumsy and not very clear (I think others
mentioned that)
(2) what is the conformance? An empty string is prohibited? so
it's 1 or more contracts/URIs?
(3) if there's more than one space, is it as good as a single
space (the typical XML whitespace-doesn't-count rule)?
(4) how do implementations enforce the one space rule? Do they
accept any whitespace (newline, tab, space and multiples)?
Thanks!
bill
--
On 11/3/14 6:35 PM, William Cox wrote:
One more thing.
"contract" was plural per discussion (and I missed last week).
"contractList" appears to be a space-separated list of anyURI;
is it really whitespace-separated?
Line 1018 says "It is a string with special structure regarding
the space-separated group of URIs." I would suggest "It is a set
of space-separated URIs with the components being of XML Schema
type xs:anyURI."
But that seems really strange. Why not have an actual list of
anyURI that normal parsers and object models can handle instead
of a parse a string? Per line 832 it's an obix::list. Would it
make sense for contracts (note the "S") to be such a list
instead of a must-be-separately-parsed string?
Thanks!
bill
--
On 11/3/14 6:27 PM, William Cox wrote:
All --
I've finished my Jira items; several are now assigned to Craig
for minor editorial fixes.
In my Jira review, I noticed the changes around contract (still
in the WD38 schema at lines 41-43) as
<xs:simpleType name="contract">
<xs:list itemType="xs:anyURI"/>
</xs:simpleType>
The text related to "ContractList" (line 1020-1027 in WD38) is
troublesome - but I could be convinced it's acceptable.
Note that "contract" is in the schema and is not used.
I'm thinking that since ContractList is really a conformed
string that it would be best to have it as a simpleType with
constraints, so
<xs:documentation>Names the
Contracts the Object implements. The value must conform to the
rules for the contractList as described the
specification.</xs:documentation>
would more appropriately be in the description a new simpleType
so the constrained string is described in one place :
<xs:simpleType
name="contractList">
<xs:list itemType="xs:stringI"/>
</xs:simpleType>
Would this break anything? It jars that "contract" would mean
"contractList" by the normative comments...Removing an unused
type definition is IMO non-substantive so we could remove it
later.
Thoughts?
Thanks!
bill
On 11/2/14 11:47 AM, Considine,
Toby wrote:
Please Resolve tickets rather than
closing them.
In the world of standards, closing
first says “We blew off your comment”
Thanks
tc