> The <annotation>, et al, conventions were borrowed from those
> of XSD. It would be good to stay aligned with and adopt
> further techniques and conventions from XSD.
I agree that a <documentationRef> tag does not sound like the best idea. I
looked up the xsd annotation definitions (see below for details). The xsd
documentation tag has a "source" and "xml:lang", but also allows for
different attributes under a different namespace. The "source" tag really
looks like what we need, but it requires an "anyURI" in xsd which is not
available for the individual sections in the LLRP spec. Since we also need
two references (general and binary encoding in LLRP spec), it might be best
to have two attributes under the LLRP namespace listing the LLRP section and
the corresponding LLRP section for the binary encoding.
Otherwise we could also just add the reference to the text in the
<documentation> tag.
Since the code generators actually use the information to generate the
documentation, we could in principle also use the xsd <appinfo> tag. In the
end, it is human-readable information though and it should probably go into
the <documentation> tag.
> Only two concerns: 1) Is the LLRP spec copyright OK with this;
I sent an email asking Gay Whitney at EPCglobal about the copyright issue.
I'll let you know once I've heard from her. Haven't looked into the XHTML
issue.
> Is there somebody who might take this on?
I will ask one of the students at the Auto-ID Lab at ETH Zurich to look into
this next week. Before we include all the documentation, we'll send a couple
of samples to the list so we can agree on common guidelines on which info to
include and how to format it. Is that ok with you guys?
- Christian
XSD annotations:
<annotation
id = ID
{any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
Content: (appinfo | documentation)*
</annotation>
<appinfo
source = anyURI
{any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
Content: ({any})*
</appinfo>
<documentation
source = anyURI
xml:lang = language
{any attributes with non-schema namespace . . .}>
Content: ({any})*
</documentation>
Source: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-1-20041028/structures.html
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Gordon Waidhofer
> Sent: Freitag, 20. Juli 2007 16:34
> To: LLRP Toolkit Development List
> Subject: Re: [ltk-d] Extended Documentation in LLRPdef.xml? [heur]
>
>
> I also like the idea of including some documentation in LLRPdef.xml.
>
> The <annotation>, et al, conventions were borrowed from those
> of XSD. It would be good to stay aligned with and adopt
> further techniques and conventions from XSD. For example, I think (not
> sure) there is some attribute= to know what kind of
> <documentation> the text is. That might be used instead of
> <documentationRef>.
> It might also be the sort of info code/IDE generators need.
>
> Provided XHTML is in harmony with XSD documentation methods,
> I think it is a good idea.
>
> Only two concerns: 1) Is the LLRP spec copyright OK with this; and
> 2) It could be a bear to keep things in sync as the spec evolves.
>
> Provide (1) is OK, I'm not overly concerned about (2). The
> spec should be fairly static for years. There likely will be errata.
> It would even be nice to fold the errata into LLRPdef.xml.
>
> Is there somebody who might take this on?
>
> Regards,
> -gww
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of John R. Hogerhuis
> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 1:12 PM
> To: LLRP Toolkit Development List
> Subject: Re: [ltk-d] Extended Documentation in LLRPdef.xml? [heur]
>
> On 7/20/07, Christian Floerkemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Pro:
> > - we can generate code and the appropriate
> documentation from
> the
> > XML description
> >
> > Con:
> > - LLRPdef.xml might become a bit overloaded with
> documentation.
> > - Might not be useful for all implementations (I think it
> would at
> > least help for an c# and java impl)
> >
> > Not sure whether this was already considered earlier and rejected.
> >
> > - Christian
> >
> >
>
> I for one would welcome such a patch :-) This would be a big
> help in the Perl documented-oriented approach interactively
> generating instances of LLRP.xsd . Good XML editors will
> reveal this text in useful contexts.
>
> Do you know if XML editors typically support XHTML markup in
> annotations? If so that is probably what we should use for
> specifying emphasis, line breaks, etc.
>
> -- 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
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________
llrp-toolkit-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/llrp-toolkit-devel
