At 04:47 PM 11/7/2003 -0500, Edward Shallow wrote:
>Guys,
>
> I don't mind following this track if it takes us to completion, but the
>profile engagement rules are clearly evolving from eMail to eMail.
yeah.
> Don't
>shoot the messenger, I'm simply looking for (helping to flush out ?) a way
>to write a profile.
Sure, that's helpful.
> If writing a profile is obvious to everyone on the list
>but yours truly, then excuuuuuse meeee.
We've proposed a way of doing profiles (normative text saying which options
and outputs are supported). The core rules about the options/outputs are
in the process of being nailed down (no ordering of options and outputs;
the server can return outputs that aren't requested; that's it so far).
Anyways, you'd rather have profiles that have stronger
schema-typing. That's reasonable.
I think what Rich and I are saying is that these two approaches are
equivalent. You can describe a profile with normative text, *or* write a
schema for it. However, either way you do it, you need to respect the
rules laid down in the core about ordering and etc..
So we still need to write text to account for those rules, and any others
that pop up. But in broad outline, I'd say that's the leading
proposal. So the ball's sort of in your court to accept or reject this, or
suggest variations etc., if you think that's the wrong approach. And of
course, the more concrete your suggestions, the better.
> I will try out some options along these lines, run them thru XMLSPY, and
>pass them by you.
Cool, thanks.
Trevor
