160 lines
5.0 KiB
Plaintext
160 lines
5.0 KiB
Plaintext
head 1.7;
|
|
access;
|
|
symbols;
|
|
locks; strict;
|
|
comment @# @;
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
date 2009.11.25.03.14.40; author GarryJolleyRogers; state Exp;
|
|
branches;
|
|
next 1.6;
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
date 2009.11.20.02.45.34; author LeeBelbin; state Exp;
|
|
branches;
|
|
next 1.5;
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
date 2007.03.06.17.30.00; author TWikiGuest; state Exp;
|
|
branches;
|
|
next 1.4;
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
date 2006.04.25.07.45.22; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp;
|
|
branches;
|
|
next 1.3;
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
date 2006.04.24.14.11.37; author BobMorris; state Exp;
|
|
branches;
|
|
next 1.2;
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
date 2006.04.24.09.01.54; author GregorHagedorn; state Exp;
|
|
branches;
|
|
next 1.1;
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
date 2006.04.22.13.10.55; author BobMorris; state Exp;
|
|
branches;
|
|
next ;
|
|
|
|
|
|
desc
|
|
@none
|
|
@
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.7
|
|
log
|
|
@none
|
|
@
|
|
text
|
|
@%META:TOPICINFO{author="GarryJolleyRogers" date="1259118880" format="1.1" version="1.7"}%
|
|
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="DiscussionFor101b7"}%
|
|
---+!! %TOPIC%
|
|
|
|
++%TOPIC%
|
|
|
|
-- Main.BobMorris - 22 Apr 2006: In DiscussionFor101b7, I suggested that a notion of "SDD Lite" be defined by removing the elements beginning with "__". In a telephone conference of 22 April 2006, Gregor reminded me that it has always been the case that these signify that the element is marked for discussion, not for inclusion in the schema. Also, he remarked that sometimes the context is that element _needs_ to be in the schema and the point is to discuss which of several alternatives is to be chosen. He observed that this case represents the use of an XML Schema choice model as not a choice proposed for the schema, but rather a choice for discussion and that this makes it inappropriate to simply remove, e.g. with XSLT, all the elements so marked.
|
|
|
|
In other words, we still need to examine those elements by hand and come to a decision. His opinion is that these will not be controversial. Perhaps after b8 we can enumerate them here, distinguishing the truly "take out now and put in a future revision" from "choose one of these and fix the schema to reflect that".
|
|
|
|
Gregor: I welcome any contribution to a discussion about elements marked with double underscore. In contrast to what Bob says, however, at the current stage of the discussion if no further discussion occurs, the elements with double underscore will automatically not be present in the schema. Unfortunately it is a bit of work (XSLT plus some manual corrections) to remove them, so they tend to stay in there until the very end.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
See also DiscussionFor1dot1beta8.@
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.6
|
|
log
|
|
@none
|
|
@
|
|
text
|
|
@d1 1
|
|
a1 1
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="LeeBelbin" date="1258685134" format="1.1" reprev="1.6" version="1.6"}%
|
|
d7 1
|
|
a7 1
|
|
-- Main.BobMorris - 22 Apr 2006: In DiscussionFor101b7, I suggested that a notion of "BDI.SDD Lite" be defined by removing the elements beginning with "__". In a telephone conference of 22 April 2006, Gregor reminded me that it has always been the case that these signify that the element is marked for discussion, not for inclusion in the schema. Also, he remarked that sometimes the context is that element _needs_ to be in the schema and the point is to discuss which of several alternatives is to be chosen. He observed that this case represents the use of an XML Schema choice model as not a choice proposed for the schema, but rather a choice for discussion and that this makes it inappropriate to simply remove, e.g. with XSLT, all the elements so marked.
|
|
d15 1
|
|
a15 1
|
|
See also DiscussionFor1dot1beta8.
|
|
@
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.5
|
|
log
|
|
@Added topic name via script
|
|
@
|
|
text
|
|
@d1 2
|
|
d5 1
|
|
a5 3
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1145951122" format="1.0" version="1.4"}%
|
|
%META:TOPICPARENT{name="DiscussionFor101b7"}%
|
|
++%TOPIC%
|
|
d7 1
|
|
a7 1
|
|
-- Main.BobMorris - 22 Apr 2006: In DiscussionFor101b7, I suggested that a notion of "SDD Lite" be defined by removing the elements beginning with "__". In a telephone conference of 22 April 2006, Gregor reminded me that it has always been the case that these signify that the element is marked for discussion, not for inclusion in the schema. Also, he remarked that sometimes the context is that element _needs_ to be in the schema and the point is to discuss which of several alternatives is to be chosen. He observed that this case represents the use of an XML Schema choice model as not a choice proposed for the schema, but rather a choice for discussion and that this makes it inappropriate to simply remove, e.g. with XSLT, all the elements so marked.
|
|
a15 1
|
|
|
|
@
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.4
|
|
log
|
|
@none
|
|
@
|
|
text
|
|
@d1 2
|
|
@
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.3
|
|
log
|
|
@none
|
|
@
|
|
text
|
|
@d1 1
|
|
a1 1
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="BobMorris" date="1145887897" format="1.0" version="1.3"}%
|
|
a11 2
|
|
---
|
|
Here list topics for discussion by their name as in SDD1.1b8
|
|
d13 1
|
|
a13 1
|
|
* ColorRangeSampleData
|
|
@
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.2
|
|
log
|
|
@none
|
|
@
|
|
text
|
|
@d1 1
|
|
a1 1
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="GregorHagedorn" date="1145869314" format="1.0" version="1.2"}%
|
|
d11 6
|
|
@
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1
|
|
log
|
|
@none
|
|
@
|
|
text
|
|
@d1 1
|
|
a1 1
|
|
%META:TOPICINFO{author="BobMorris" date="1145711455" format="1.0" version="1.1"}%
|
|
d7 1
|
|
a7 1
|
|
In other words, we still need to examine those elements by hand and come to a decision. His opinion is(?) that these will not be very controversial.
|
|
d9 1
|
|
a9 1
|
|
Perhaps after b8 we can enumerate them here, distinguishing the truly "take out now and put in a future revision" from "choose one of these and fix the schema to reflect that".
|
|
@
|