[sc34wg3] Compact syntax requirement question

[Steve Carton]

It seems to me that to the extent that a CTM syntax is intended to
permit an easier way to write a TM, it needs to represent in shorthand
all or a subset of the capabilities and limitations of XTM.  So if XTM
requires an ID on the topic, so should CTM.  If it doesn't, aren't we
creating something different?  And if we allow a topic with no ID,
should we not also permit that in XTM?

Steve Carton

-----Original Message-----
From: sc34wg3-admin@isotopicmaps.org
[mailto:sc34wg3-admin@isotopicmaps.org] On Behalf Of Lars Marius Garshol
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 6:50 AM
To: sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
Cc: Kal Ahmed
Subject: Re: [sc34wg3] Compact syntax requirement question


* Murray Altheim
|=20
| Perhaps I'm unclear on the real requirements we're talking about
| here -- I was under the impression that a requirement for ID support
| would be used by those building processors that would be able to
| perform deserialization of XTM document instances.

We've been talking at cross-purposes, then. I was thinking of
requirements for the new CTM syntax. ID support is already required
for XTM processors, so there's no need to add any such requirement.
=20
| Precisely what I alluded to above, i.e., that Kal's particular
| experience in building TM4J would be very helpful in understanding
| the ramifications of *not* requiring IDs for XML processing of XTM
| document instances. He may have additional ideas on this as well.

I guess, but I don't really see any problems here.

--=20
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian         <URL: http://www.ontopia.net >
GSM: +47 98 21 55 50                  <URL: http://www.garshol.priv.no >

_______________________________________________
sc34wg3 mailing list
sc34wg3@isotopicmaps.org
http://www.isotopicmaps.org/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg3