I really don’t want to have to port
the relaxing thing to XSD – one of the reasons to go with RelaxNG was
that the only way to capture some of the important constraints was in RelaxNG…
Do people feel like XSD is worth it any
more? I don’t…
-Gabe
From: Drummond Reed
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007
3:31 PM
To: 'Gabe
Wachob'; 'OASIS XRI TC'
Subject: RE: [xri] priority
attribute question
Ah, Gabe, good catch, that’s my
mistake. The fact that the CanonicalID element allows the priority attribute
was a legacy of drafts before ED03 (or ED04, I can’t remember) when the
CanonicalID element cardinality was zero-or-more.
Now that it is zero-or-one, neither the
CanonicalID or CanonicalEquivID should accept the priority attribute.
BTW, are you going to also put out an
updated XSD schemas for XRDS and XRD when you are done? All these final fixes
should be reflected in both even if the RelaxNG version will be normative.
Thanks,
=Drummond
From: Gabe Wachob [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007
3:11 PM
To: 'OASIS XRI TC'
Subject: [xri] priority attribute
question
I see the barx resolver returns me an XRD with a priority
attribute on the CanonicalID element.
I was a bit surprised to see that since section 4.3.3 of
WD11/ED 06 doesn’t mention CanonicalID as an element that can have a
priority attribute and neither does section 4.2.3. I *do* notice that the XSD schema from WD11/ED
06 allows it.
So which is it? What elements can have the priority
attribute?
-Gabe
