SM> Keyword Extension ISSUE 1

SM> Keyword Extension ISSUE 1

SM> Keyword Extension ISSUE 1

NorbertSchade at oaktech.com NorbertSchade at oaktech.com
Thu Sep 26 11:41:26 EDT 2002


Pete,
Yes, I would appreciate a clean validation process for attribute values.
We have made good experiences with splitting the attribute into a
predefined list plus an attribute to allow proprietary entries. We are even
establishing the  definition of a feature specific ABNF for some features
and perhaps its implementation into XML to force people to the right
syntax.
That allows the ideal use of XML tools or corresponding libraries.
Norbert





All,

As stated in the previous mail note "CORRECTED Keyword Extension Mechanism
for schema" sent earlier, I would like to resolve ISSUE 1.

ISSUE 1:  What requirements do we have to help us close on a solution?

 It seems to me that the primary objectives are to
           A)        Insure that the schema for the print model is easily
extended. For both vendors and sites.  The extensions should be allowed at
both the object and semantic element value levels.
           B)        Enable print client developers to ascertain the
capabilities
of a print device at runtime.

I think I heard a requirement that a client be able to determine that a
request is well formed, in the PWG schema sense, using XML tools and the
PWG
schema.  Am I hearing that requirement correctly?

What do you think the requirements are for selecting a solution for schema
extensibility?

Pete








More information about the Sm mailing list