OK. I'll make it optional. If I make the changes to the schema and update the llrpdef.xml am I going to break any libraries? It'll take me a few days to update the code anyway, but wanted to understand if there are compatibility issues we need to work around.
Paul -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John R. Hogerhuis Sent: Friday, September 07, 2007 3:06 PM To: LLRP Toolkit Development List Subject: Re: [ltk-d] documentation in llrpdef.xml [heur] On 9/7/07, Paul Dietrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Take 2 with John's suggestions. Llrpdef.xsd changes described below. > > Change the annotation element to contain the compliance information as > a mandatory boolean attribute. Add a new description element. Perhaps > this was the intent of the appInfo element already. Since this change > is not really backward compatible, we may want to clean that up. > > <xs:complexType name="annotation"> > <xs:choice minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"> > <xs:element name="documentation" type="llrpdef:documentation"/> > <xs:element name="appinfo" type="llrpdef:appinfo"/> > <xs:element name="description" type="llrpdef:description"/> > </xs:choice> > <xs:attribute name="required" type="xs:boolean" use="required"/> > </xs:complexType> > > Define the description type to contain any elements from XHTML > namespace and include the copyright as an attribute. > > <xs:complexType name="description" mixed="true"> > <xs:sequence> > <xs:any namespace="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; > processContents="skip" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/> > </xs:sequence> > <xs:attribute name="copyright" type="xs:string" use="required"/> > </xs:complexType> > Looks good. I don't know what appinfo is either, probably should get rid of it in favor of 'description,' which is clearer. On the copyright: the need for copyright notice on EPCGlobal stuff is absolute. But for vendor extension definition xml, the file copyright & license should be sufficient. Perhaps we don't need the attribute to be "required." In any event "required" is a directive to schema-aware validators. Most applications (like our XSLT scripts, for instance) are not schema aware so they would be oblivious. Or you could derive a restricted type epcGlobalAnnotation where the attr is required from your annotation type. I don't really care that much though. This seems fine to me as-is -- John. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ llrp-toolkit-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/llrp-toolkit-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ llrp-toolkit-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/llrp-toolkit-devel
