Re: [xacml] concrete proposal of condition reference (#7)

[Polar Humenn <polar@syr.edu>]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Simon Godik wrote:

> Hi Polar,
>
> [snip]
>
> Point #1: Should variable def be a sequence of expressions or just an
> expression? I agree, variable-def should be valid
> expression, so it's just one expression, not many.

Okay. Good.

> Point #2: Should <Function> be made into <Expression>?. The problem I see is
> that by itself
> <Function> does not have any meaning, it needs to be attached to <Apply>, so
> that's why I created <HigherOrderApply>.
> If you feel strongly that <Function> should be made into expression, I will
> not object to it. We can adopt schema that you
> propsed in your other message, with <Function> derived from <ExpressionType>
> with FunctionId attribute.

I do feel strongly about it. You may indeed invent extension higher order
functions that may take two <Function> elements at arbitrary argument
positions. Your HigherOrderApply assumes that the higher-order function
applies exactly one function to its other arguments in a certain way.

> Here is a schema with both changes applied.

It believe it looks good.

-Polar