Semantic Model Mail Archive: Re: SM> Keyword Extension ISSUE

Semantic Model Mail Archive: Re: SM> Keyword Extension ISSUE

Re: SM> Keyword Extension ISSUE 1

From: NorbertSchade@oaktech.com
Date: Thu Sep 26 2002 - 11:41:26 EDT

  • Next message: Hastings, Tom N: "SM> RE: [printing-cap] Capabilities API: Device Object [How about a M edia Object]"

    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



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 26 2002 - 11:43:36 EDT