5523 2008-03-04 16:49:26 +0000 Discuss the behavior of GET on URI 2008-06-25 09:16:09 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified SML Core LC PC Windows NT RESOLVED FIXED externalComments, reviewerSatisfied P2 normal --- 1 pratul.dublish kumarp ht johnarwe public-sml oldest_to_newest 19271 0 pratul.dublish 2008-03-04 16:49:26 +0000 Minor comment from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2008Mar/0001.html 4.3.1.1 should discuss what happens if a) the Content-Type of the response to the GET of the URI is not an XML media type; b) the entity body of the response to the GET of the URI is not well-formed XML. 19326 1 pratul.dublish 2008-03-06 17:31:32 +0000 I believe that this bug is about Section 4.3.1. We should treat the reference as unresolved in the two cases mentioned in the bug 19346 2 kumarp 2008-03-07 03:17:53 +0000 resolution (3/6 conf call): mark editorial once proposal accepted Proposal: [1] Change the last sentence in section 4.3.1 SML URI Reference Scheme bullet 2.b, from: If there is no document retrieved, the SML reference scheme instance is unresolved. to: If it does not retrieve a document in the current model, the SML reference scheme instance is unresolved. The updated sentence will have the word ‘document’ as a link to its definition in the terminology section. [2] Add the following non-normative note immediately after the changed sentence: Note: As a result of the above definition, if the retrieved object is not of is not of XML media type or if it is not well-formed XML then, by definition, that object is not a document as defined by this specification. In this case, the SML reference scheme instance is unresolved. === The SML WG believes that the above proposal resolves this issue fully. I'm changing its status accordingly. The change in status should cause email to be sent to the originator of this issue, to whom the following request is addressed. Please review the changes adopted and let us know if you agree with this resolution of your issue, by adding a comment to the issue record. Or, if you do not agree with this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with the WG decision. 19360 3 kumarp 2008-03-07 19:15:03 +0000 'is not of' is repeated by mistake in the non-normative note. Thanks to Kirk for catching it. 19772 4 virginia.smith 2008-04-10 18:22:21 +0000 Resolution 4/10 - fix per comment #2 as amended by comment #3. 19828 5 kumarp 2008-04-16 04:23:12 +0000 fixed per comment# 4 20117 6 kumarp 2008-05-15 19:49:38 +0000 Henry, can you please let us know if the resolution in comment# 2 is acceptable to you? 20798 7 ht 2008-06-24 14:39:46 +0000 I am happy that the text now in the draft addresses my concern.