I agree with Eve, we did discuss this and all present at that
time reached consensus. Of course you can request that the discussion
be reopened, but I think saying "until we've debated the pros/cons..."
implies that we haven't debated this, but we have.
On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 07:04, Eve L. Maler wrote:
> I hate to say this and find out I'm wrong, but... Though we didn't do a
> formal vote, I thought we had reached consensus in Minneapolis on
> "full". It was proposed in the first place as an improvement over
> "empty" that is immediately usable to customizers without extra
> application layers and gives interop benefits.
>
> Eve
>
> Burcham, Bill wrote:
> > I'll reiterate the concern I raised in the phone con yesterday: there are
> > two proposals for solving the problem here and both involve a library of
> > ur-types. The old proposal (paella) proposes an ur-type library of empty
> > types (names only), the newer proposal prescribes an ur-type library of
> > "full" types (where each element of each type is optional). Until we've
> > debated the pros/cons of empty vs. full, can we change the description to
> > something like:
> >
> > (4) XSD derivation does not allow certain types of operations, such as
> > creating a derived type with optional content that was required in the base
> > type. Because these operations might be needed in real-world business
> > implementations of UBL, a top-level or "Ur" library of types will be created
> > in a separate namespace, mirroring the UBL library. The UBL library will be
> > derived from this Ur Library, which will also be available to UBL
> > implementors when they need to create a type that cannot be derived directly
> > from one of the UBL types.
> >
> > (I just removed "but with all content models containing only optional
> > elements and attributes").
> >
> > Is that ok?
--
Eduardo Gutentag | e-mail:
Web Technologies and Standards | Phone: +1 510 550 4616 x31442
Sun Microsystems Inc. | 1800 Harrison St. Oakland, CA 94612
W3C AC Rep / OASIS TAB Chair
