RE: PIDF - some things left out of draft

On 02 May 2002 19:47, Carr, Wayne wrote:
> > It says this in the context of status values that 'extend' the value

> > of the <basic> element. The must is for this extension case, not the
> > general case. It reads that way to me, but if you've got some
> > alternative text that makes it clearer, feel free to post it.
> 
> I think that's the part I'm confused about.  To extend the basic 
> element -- doesn't that mean to include child elements inside the 
> <status> element from some other namespaces?  (so not really extending

> the <basic> element, but including other child elements inside status)

> I read the sentence as meaning if you use those other extensions 
> elements in another namespace then you have to include a <basic> 
> element too.  Wouldn't that mean you always have the <basic> element -

> otherwise there would be nothing at all as content of the <status> 
> element.

I meant in a semantic sense - the <basic> element represents status as
regards the acceptance of instant messages. Some status value ranges
will be designed to 'extend' the two allowable states by providing
greater granularity. I anticipate that there will be a great deal of
argument in the discussions for producing an IETF instant messaging
status range particularly in dealing with how different values map to
open or closed. For example, does 'busy' mean I'm accepting messages but
doing something else so I may not answer, or does it mean I'm doing
something else so I'm not accepting messages. By saying that these types
of status range must include the <basic> element for interoperability,
not only does this imply some downward compatibility, but it negates the
point of such an argument.

Other types of status value will be entirely orthogonal to the <basic>
element and as such stand in their own right. I don't consider this
'extending' the value of <basic>, but merely including additional status
information.

Maybe 'extend' is the wrong word, but it was the best I came up with.

Adrian.




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