Re: [Model] Section 4.2

Sounds reasonable. 

I may be getting into bean counting now - but is it fair to
ask just to cutnpaste what you said below into the text?

cheers,
jamal

On Fri, 2007-05-01 at 11:27 -0500, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> I believe that there is no point in defining an LFBLibrary with no 
> content.  However:
> 1) It doesn't hurt anything for that to be a compliant document
> 2) More importantly, getting the schema to allow each piece to be 
> optional, but requiring something, was going to be a lot of work.
> So, since it was hard to get right, and basically didn't matter, the 
> schema allows empty content.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
> 
> At 11:17 AM 1/5/2007, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> 
> >Although the first paragraph says "one or more blocks" within the root
> >element <LFBLibrary>, the following text indicates "zero or more" since
> >all elements are optional (except for the description, which seems
> >unintended to be non-optional).
> >- which one is correct?
> >- what would be the point to defining an LFB that has zero elements?
> >- Should there be some that are a must-have in order to allow for
> >something meaningful?
> >
> >
> >I am going to stop flooding the list with new issues just so we can pick
> >up on the ones i have been posting so far. In the meantime, on the ones
> >where a known path has been defined - I will enter entries into
> >the tracker.
> >
> >cheers,
> >jamal