Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > regarding my proposed reorganization of documents: I strongly disagree with > Martin's comment on jabber that it would be a mere split of the contents into > two documents. It is certainly not true because > > - we could get rid of the use-schema/inline choice in schema-mounts data: the > inline case needs to state data in the parent tree at all
If this was the case, we could remove 'inline' even today from this choice. But we can't do that unless we don't use an extension also for "use-schema", which I know you want to get rid of, but the WG wants to keep. > - there are many CLRs that are relevant only to one of the methods, so have to > distinguish the cases in the text; for example, parent-references don't apply > to > "inline" Correct. OTOH with two documents you probably need additional text to explain the relationship between them. > - (most important for me) the two methods are really two different mechanisms, > and the "inline" method invites various instance-related considerations > whereas > "use-schema" doesn't; it's been my experience that people keep confusing > schema > construction and instance data mounting. "inline" doesn't imply instance data mounting. Our implementation uses "inline" w/o instance data mounting. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
