RE: WG Last Call on URP I-D

John,

John McMeeking wrote:
> See
> <JAM>
> responses
> </JAM>

> John McMeeking wrote:
> > 2.  Section 5.1.3, b and c.  You might note that Section 
> 5.2 will show
> why
> > attribute value deletion records are not required in these cases.
> 
> Case c) explicitly *does* require (attribute) value deletion records.
> An attribute deletion record instead of value deletion 
> records for case b)
> was a free design choice (based on what is most likely to 
> match the user's
> intention) so I don't see in what way Section 5.2 shows why 
> value deletion
> records are not required for case b). Section 5.2 would work 
> either way.
> 
> <JAM>
> I think I let a typo slip through -- I meant b and d (not c). 
> Back to the
> original comment: Should there be any statement added that 5.2
> (specifically when p-remove-attribute supercedes other 
> primitives) shows
> why value deletion records are not required?
> </JAM>

Now I understand. A statement like the following ?

  "It is not necessary to generate p-remove-attribute-value primitives
   for each of the values actually removed because the p-remove-attribute
   primitive would supersede all such primitives, by the rules in
   Section 5.2."

I'll add it if you think it helps.

> 
> > Under
> > (d), you might note that d) covers the special case for 
> replace where a
> > replace with no attribute values is treated as a attribute deletion.
> 
> I'll add an "if any" to the end of the last sentence in d).
> I'd rather not say that a replace with no values is treated like a
> deletion since a replace with listed values is most definitely *not*
> treated like a deletion with listed values. I think it is better to
> describe each case in isolation.
> 
> <JAM>
> I think it would be clearer to add a sentence like: "The replace
> alternative with no attribute values generates only an 
> attribute deletion
> record."
> </JAM>

Okay. I'll add this.


Regards,
Steven