Re: PIDF - some things left out of draft

This is a nit, so feel free to ignore:

In 
   "The <status> element contains 0 or 1 OPTIONAL <basic>
   elements, followed by 0 or more OPTIONAL extension elements
   from other namespaces."

isn't the wording "0 or * OPTIONAL" redundant?
Wouldn't it be just as precise and more concise to say:

   "The <status> element contains 1 OPTIONAL <basic>
   element, followed by any number of OPTIONAL extension
   elements from other namespaces."

Paul

"Carr, Wayne" wrote:
> 
> your workding sounds good to me.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hiroyasu Sugano [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 10:11 PM
> > To: Carr, Wayne; [email protected]; 'Graham Klyne'; [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: PIDF - some things left out of draft
> >
> >
> > Wayne,
> >
> > Thanks very much for your comments.  Most of the issues 2 and
> > 3 are reflected
> > in the coming draft.  I have one comment.
> >
> > > Section 4.1.3, the first sentence of the first paragraph
> > should be changed
> > > to: "The <status> element contains 0 or 1 OPTIONAL <basic> elements,
> > > followed by 0 or more OPTIONAL extension elements from
> > other namespaces."
> >
> > This statement seems to allow the <status> element with no
> > values, which is
> > not allowed in the present draft.  If we go with this
> > restriction, the sentence above
> > would be like:
> >
> >   The <status> element contains 0 or 1 OPTIONAL <basic> elements,
> >   followed by 0 or more OPTIONAL extension elements from
> > other namespaces,
> >   under the restriction that at least one child element
> > appears in the <status>
> > element.
> >
> > If you have better wording, please post it.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> > -- Hiroyasu Sugano
> >
> >
> 
>   [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]


  [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]