Re: draft-tan-epp-launchphase-04
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.provreg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAC1BbcRZOSD9PMaT_r5TyUdz=kj_b-7us1hZGMf7=t6EizsopQ@mail.gmail.com> |
On 13 December 2012 14:54, Gould, James <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> I take it that <mark:country> can be specified Zero or more times? >>> >>>JG - No, currently it is a single country. Should this be a list? >> >>I would have assumed that it can be specified 'Zero or more' times, or >>at least multiple times, yes. > > JG - That is a real good question. I really would like the IBM and or > Deloitte representatives to review the mark elements at a minimum to > verify against the TMCH data model, since I really don't want to be > guessing on this. agree >>I see. The 5730 contains this note about namespaces which i find more >>clear (since it explicitly states that one can omit namespaces >>completely): >>The XML namespace prefixes used in examples (such as the >>string "foo" in "xmlns:foo") are solely for illustrative purposes. A >>conforming implementation MUST NOT require the use of these or any >>other specific namespace prefixes. > > JG - Do you believe that the text in section 1.1 "Conventions Used in This > Document" does not correct reflect the intent? I include a snippet for > the use of the "smd" prefix below: > > "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:signedMark-1.0". The XML namespace prefix > "smd" is used, but implementations MUST NOT depend on it and instead > employ a proper namespace-aware XML parser and serializer to > interpret and output the XML documents. "instead employ a proper namespace-aware XML parser" is exactly the problem. EPP allows me to drive completely without namespace, see quote from RFC5730 above. >>>>- 4.3. Mark Schema >>>> type="date" >>>> as mentioned above it would be nice to have those as dateTime >>> >>>JG - I agree that the dates should include the time element, but I want >>>to >>>ensure that the data types match what is stored in the TMCH. This is >>>really dependent on the true definition of the trademark attributes. I'm >>>going to include a higher level comment at the top related to IBM and >>>Deloitte to help define the mark attributes along with the appropriate >>>types. I'll hold off changing the date types to dateTime right now. >> >>ok. Still, it would be a bad choice to use a data-type that is imprecise >>for IMHO no real gain. >> >>hmz. Great, there seems to be a minus missing in the note for >>3.2.9.1 Lexical representation in >>http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#date-lexical-representation >>I think it should read '-11:59' and not '11:59' >>but anyway.. So let's wait for input from TMCH folks.. _______________________________________________ provreg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg