Re: Attempt to summarize various threads

Thanks, Jonathan.

Although I've received no other comments or responses, probably because of 
Holiday season, I think it is better to go forward.  I will submit it immediately.

--  Hiroyasu Sugano


> This is fine by me.
> 
> -Jonathan R.
> 
> Hiroyasu Sugano wrote:
> > Hi, all. 
> > 
> > Sorry for my delayed response. 
> > I have managed my time to revise the PIDF draft. 
> > 
> > 
> >>3. Is it OK for there to be zero tuples in PIDF?  Yes, but we need to add
> >>text to the spec discouraging any attempt to use e.g. <note> as a
> >>non-interoperable substitute for status.
> > 
> > 
> > In addition to some changes to allow zero tuples (including Schema Definition
> > and DTD),  I have inserted a simple paragraph as follows after the first paragraph 
> > of Section 4.1.6 (The <note> element); 
> > 
> >    Note that, wherever it appears, a <note> element SHOULD NOT be used,
> >    and interpreted, as a non-interoperable substitute for status of its
> >    parent element.
> > 
> > 
> > Does it work? 
> > 
> > 
> > -- Hiroyasu Sugano
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >   [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]
> > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                72 Eagle Rock Ave.
> Chief Scientist                             First Floor
> dynamicsoft                                 East Hanover, NJ 07936
> [email protected]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
> http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
> http://www.dynamicsoft.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   [reminder: [email protected] for non-technical discussions, please]
> 
> 
> 



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