Re: draft-tan-epp-launchphase-04

On 13-Dec-2012, at 10:38 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.

I think you're misinterpreting that statement (or perhaps I'm misinterpreting your comment). It doesn't say you don't have to deal with namespaces, it just says you don't have to use the prefixes in the RFC.

> 
>>>>> - 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

_______________________________________________
provreg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/provreg