RE: PIDF - some things left out of draft

> 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.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Bateman [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 11:05 AM
> To: 'Carr, Wayne'; 'Hiroyasu Sugano'; 'Graham Klyne'; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: PIDF - some things left out of draft
> 
> 
> On 02 May 2002 17:51, Carr, Wayne wrote:
> > I think a few things need to be corrected in the draft.
> > 
> > Issue 1. section 4.2.4 - basic element is optional, but 
> text implies 
> > it is required. 4.2.4 says "In order that some level of 
> > interoperability be maintained with user agents that don't 
> recognise 
> > the new extension, the <basic> status value must also be 
> included."  
> > That sounds like it is saying the basic element is required, but 
> > recent mail says it is optional.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Adrian.
> 
> 


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