codelist — archive

[Ken Holman]

In light of these excellent questions, I'm unsure about keeping the tentative January 22 teleconference. I'd like to get the opinions of others for these answers. Please post them to the list as soon as possible. I'll write my own as well. If there are big changes then I won't be ready with another draft before the 22nd. If we decide there aren't big changes, then I will be ready and we can talk about the next draft. Please share your thoughts. . . . . . . . . . . . Ken At 2008-01-08 09:42 +0000, Paul Spencer wrote: >Sorry it has taken me a while to catch up, but I have now read this draft. > >As a general point, why XPath 1.0, not 2.0? > >I seem to remember this one being discussed, but I have forgotten the >reason. Since the CVA spec applies solely to genericode validation, why is >the word "genericode" not included in the title? > >In the introduction, there is discussion of three levels of validation: >structure, value, co-constraints. But genericode only covers a fraction of >value constraints. For example, it does not cover a constraint that a value >must be between 100 and 299. This seems to be ignored in the discussion. > >I followed the link to Crane Softwrights resources at the bottom of page 7, >but did not find anything relevant initially. The link to the correct page >on the site needs to mention genericode and CVA. > >I think the use of mixed model has been discussed. I hate it in this type of >document. I would only allow mixed model in external namespaces (such as >XHTML). It is easier to read and easier to process without it. > >CVA uses a relational model with separate ValueList and Contexts. I can see >that this saves text in rare cases where a masqueraded list has multiple >references, but otherwise it just complicates things. Is it necessary? I >would prefer to see the two combined into something like: >