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
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.
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...
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: