RE: PIDF status values

On 18 April 2002 11:21, Graham Klyne wrote:
> At 11:39 AM 4/17/02 +0100, Adrian Bateman wrote:
> >This is a draft describing the my proposal for the structure of the
> >status values within PIDF. My example reflects the urn change 
> >recommended by Graham and the use of the 'entity' attribute as 
> >discussed previously on the list.
> >
> >When it came down to it, I couldn't think of a tremendous amount to
> >write for the 4.2.4 section so if there are gaps you'd like
mentioned, 
> >please let me know, or fill them in :o).
> >
> >To address Graham's issue with a status value registry, aren't we
> >covered by simply registering the xml namespace urn?
> 
> Thanks:  I think this works OK -- are we clear about what happens with
> unrecognized status code elements? (I think other wording in the
document 
> covers this but it might help to be explicit in the section on status
value 
> extensibility.  Just one sentence -- I can supply some words if you
wish.)

Well, I included something like this in 4.1.4 (which was pretty much
copied from one of your previous e-mails). Does it need repeating again
further down? If you think so, I have no objections.

Regards,

Adrian.

> >4.1.4  The <status> element
> >
> >    The <status> element contains one or more elements indicating
status
> >    values. It can have multiple status values at the same time. By
> >    allowing multiple status values in a single <tuple> element,
> >different
> >    types of status values, e.g. reachability and location, can be
> >    represented by a <tuple>. See Section 4.3 for an example with 
> >multiple
> >    status values.
> >
> >    This memo only defines the <basic> status value element. Other
status
> >    values may be included using the standard extensibility framework
> >    (see Section 4.2.4). Applications encountering unrecognized
elements
> >    within <status> may ignore them, unless they carry a
> >mustUnderstand="YES"
> >    attribute (see section 4.2.3).




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