RE: [tag] Reservations about basing 'testAssertion' and 'shared' on common type

["Jacques R. Durand" <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>]

 I have no strong opinion here...
Also we have not yet resolved the "sharing modes":
- some [shared] values are directly inherited by individual Tas, which
may override them.
- some [shared] values are directly inherited by individual Tas, which
may only "add" to these in a form of composition, e.g. an individual
Prerequisite element in a TA would not override, but compose (AND) with
it.
So we might have to add a @mode of sharing for each element of the
<shared>, one more reason I see to keep <shared> defined differently in
the schema ?

Jacques

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Green [mailto:stephengreenubl@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 12:04 PM
To: TAG TC
Subject: [tag] Reservations about basing 'testAssertion' and 'shared' on
common type

I have some reservations about using a common type in the markup to make
'testAssertion' and 'shared' derive from the same type (at least for
those elements they have in common).
A major argument in favour of the common type is to reduce redundancy.
The argument against it which concerns me is that this introduces a weak
feature when W3C XML Schema derivation (extension) is used. It adds
complexity and may be a cause for concern if we ever wanted to further
extend the types in another version. In principle there is no problem
with using extension; it's just a concern when this is done with W3C XML
Schema (as in TAML version 0.3). My opinion is that if we continue to
use W3C XML Schema to define TAML we are better trying to avoid
derivation more than we try to avoid redundancy.
---
Stephen D Green

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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