18 messages in org.oasis-open.lists.xri-editorsRE: [xri-editors] further thinking on...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Dave McAlpin | Feb 4, 2005 11:19 am | |
| Peter C Davis | Feb 4, 2005 11:39 am | |
| Dave McAlpin | Feb 4, 2005 11:43 am | |
| Peter C Davis | Feb 4, 2005 11:52 am | |
| Dave McAlpin | Feb 4, 2005 11:59 am | |
| Drummond Reed | Feb 4, 2005 3:32 pm | |
| Wachob, Gabe | Feb 6, 2005 2:23 pm | |
| Dave McAlpin | Feb 7, 2005 10:56 am | |
| Peter C Davis | Feb 7, 2005 11:28 am | |
| Drummond Reed | Feb 7, 2005 2:47 pm | |
| Wachob, Gabe | Feb 7, 2005 7:07 pm | |
| Dave McAlpin | Feb 7, 2005 7:22 pm | |
| Drummond Reed | Feb 7, 2005 7:51 pm | |
| Peter C Davis | Feb 8, 2005 5:45 am | |
| Wachob, Gabe | Feb 8, 2005 10:01 am | |
| Drummond Reed | Feb 9, 2005 9:20 am | |
| Wachob, Gabe | Feb 11, 2005 3:01 pm | |
| Dave McAlpin | Feb 11, 2005 3:03 pm |
| Subject: | RE: [xri-editors] further thinking on mustUnderstand | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Drummond Reed (drum...@cordance.net) | |
| Date: | Feb 7, 2005 2:47:10 pm | |
| List: | org.oasis-open.lists.xri-editors | |
I hate to be dumb, but how do we enforce such a proposal? Is the only extension point then the XRIDescriptor element? Or do we just do it with normative text?
Secondly, why is this better than the original situation of just having a global Must Ignore rule that any XRI resolver that doesn't understand an extension must ignore it?
Lastly, is there clear precedence for this approach, that we can point to so we don't have to spend a bunch of energy and text explaining our decision?
Feel free to ring me to discuss if this is too much to go over in text.
=Drummond
-----Original Message----- From: Peter C Davis [mailto:pete...@neustar.biz] Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 11:29 AM To: Dave McAlpin Cc: Wachob, Gabe; Drummond Reed; xri-...@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [xri-editors] further thinking on mustUnderstand
On Monday 07 February 2005 01:56 pm, Dave McAlpin wrote:
After discussing this internally, I'm supporting Gabe's option 3. It accomplishes what we're looking for while avoiding the problem of inappropriate MustUnderstand attributes on immediate children of XRID. It also has the nice effect of leaving the current schema intact. Can we agree to close this issue?
I am fine wrt option 3 as gabe described below i suppose...
--- peterd
3) We don't use mustUnderstand at all. We can actually get the same effect of mustUnderstand by requiring extensions to "wrap" other elements. So, for the example above:
<XRIDescriptor> <other:SuperAuthority> <Authority> ... <other:ExtensionElement>...</other:ExtensionElement> </Authority> </other:SuperAuthority> <Service> ... </Service> </XRIDescriptors>
This would have the same effect, using *only* a mustIgnore rule, as the #1 option. It may make the combining of extension elements quite complicated.