Loading...

XML

Word

Printable

Proposal:
Hide

Delete from 1.4:

E.g. [1..1] means REQUIRED, exactly once, [..*] means OPTIONAL, any number of times.

I would delete all the [1...1] notations, etc. and if you want to describe a co-occurrence constraint that you can't in the schema, fine. But let's not invent notation for stuff already covered in the schema.
Show
Delete from 1.4: E.g. [1..1] means REQUIRED, exactly once, [..*] means OPTIONAL, any number of times. I would delete all the [1...1] notations, etc. and if you want to describe a co-occurrence constraint that you can't in the schema, fine. But let's not invent notation for stuff already covered in the schema.
Resolution:

Hide

Leave notation as is. This notation is used consistently across the suite of EDXL standards for clarity.

Show
Leave notation as is. This notation is used consistently across the suite of EDXL standards for clarity.

1.4 Terminology reads in part:

- - - - E.g. [1..1] means REQUIRED, exactly once, [..*] means OPTIONAL, any number of times.

Actually, that's not markup language is it? That's from modeling.

What's wrong with using + one or more, ? optional, and * zero or more, as standard notation? More likely to be read correctly by markup users.

BTW, you do know that your XSD schema controls in the event of a conflict with the standard?

- - - - Where any definition in these separate files disagrees with the definition found in the specification, the definition in the separate file prevails.

So you really don't have to repeat the constraints you have in the schema in any formal way in the prose text. The schema already has that covered.