[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xri] <Type>
I don't think we need to say anything other than explicitly allow empty values. A protocol can use a property with empty value to indicate type. At the end, it makes no difference because a client will need to understand both the property type (URI) and its value semantics. If anything, I expect this change to have an immediate impact on most current examples of the <Type> element, breaking the type URIs into a key component and a value component. For example: <Type>http://example.com/some/spec/version/1.0</Type> Will most likely now be declared as: <Property type="http://example.com/some/spec/version">1.0</Property> Almost every example I can think of can and should be broken up like this. EHL > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Cantor [mailto:cantor.2@osu.edu] > Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 1:30 PM > To: 'Drummond Reed' > Cc: xri@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [xri] <Type> > > Drummond Reed wrote on 2009-11-07: > > Yes, that works fine too, as long as we _explicitly_ define that as > the > > semantics of a <Property> that has no value. > > I'd definitely argue against empty values that mean something other > than > "empty value" (and note that in XML, empty does not mean "nil", there's > an > xsi:nil for that). > > -- Scott > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]