Some ideas based on my investigations:
1. Define common constraints at the root level and refer to them (with 'ref'), e.g. in ServiceSpecificServiceDescription.
these constraints will likely have children of the ImagingService... base classes. That's ok if they stay extensible.
2. It's ok to specify special constraints for some services, e.g. the print service (as today). I have no preference for that.
if so, it's perhaps a good idea to support that for the most popular services, e.g. copy, scan and fax services as well.
the ScanServiceDescriptionType is rather short in 1.185.
3. Having constraints and resolvers refer to existing objects of the capabilities via ID and IDREF would strengthen the validation.
and for me it would make the xml instance more readable.
this is just a proposal, not a request.
Regards
Norbert
Norbert Schade
Systems Engineer (printing)
Imaging Solutions
Conexant Systems, Inc.
201 Jones Road
Waltham, MA 02451
U.S.A.
Tel: 1-781-370-8929
Email: norbert.schade at conexant.com<mailto:norbert.schade at conexant.com>
Conexant E-mail Firewall (Conexant.Com) made the following annotations
---------------------------------------------------------------------
********************** Legal Disclaimer ****************************
"This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any unauthorized review, use or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete the message. Thank you."
**********************************************************************
---------------------------------------------------------------------