Brian Smith wrote:
Bill de hOra wrote:
Brian Smith wrote:
That's not what the spec says. What spec text allows a
client to assume a term is globally unique?
The spec says:
The "scheme" attribute [...] identifies a categorization scheme.
We seem to all be unanimous that here "identifies" means "uniquely identifies".
I'm not. To paraphrase yourself, it means what it says it means.
But, immediately prior to that we have:
The "term" attribute [...] identifies the category to
which the entry or feed belongs.
Here, apparently, "identifies" does not mean "uniquely identifies" even though
the sentence structure is exactly the same.
Again, it means what it says it means.
I dug around and saw that in draft 04 of the spec., the term attribute was
defined with different language:
The "term" attribute [...] identifies the category
within the categorization scheme to which the entry
or feed belongs.
It is poorly worded but I think it is clearer than what the spec. says now.
Sorry, no. The only problem with the spec in this case, is that you're
to retroactively imbue meaning to it, to support an argument you want to
be the case.
I can see that there is consensus here (that I am wrong :),
so I won't argue further about what the spec. says vs. what
it intends to say. If there is some errata mechanism for the
specification, we should consider adding a clarification there.
That's a better tack that redefinition.
Bill
