Bug in eml2 for inline element type defination

[Scott Chapal]

Peter,

Peter McCartney <peter.mccartney at asu.edu> writes:

> Well this seems to be an important issue. We are in the middle of a remodel
> of Xylopia to use EML documents as a container for passing data between
> modules using the inline element. Given all the problems with validating EML
> documents, I think its easier to just check an EML document to see if it has
> what I need rather that coping with a million other reasons why the file
> might not be valid depending on the parser you use. Therefore, we havent
> detected this problem. 

I've heard you voice similar objections before, but I don't understand
what you are opposed to.  The validitation requirement/feature in XML
schema?  If so, why don't we just hack metadata notes in ASCII and
pass them back and forth?  I don't see validation as debatable, per
se, because it equates to the structured part of "Structured
Metadata".  How that validation is defined is the difficulty.  If
xerces or any other tool has bugs, well that's a
horse-of-a-different-color.


> There are other equally severe problems we've noted, however! The absence of
> a union in the temporal coverage field prevents us from putting a year as
> opposed to a calendar date. Id like to make sure that if we are developing a
> target list for 2.x bugfixes, we have a system to do it logically. Do we
> need to define a new version target in bugzilla so that we can start putting
> these in there rather than helterskelter through email? Ive held off adding
> anything for fear that it gets attached to 2.0.0 which seems like it should
> be closed.

I would think "bugfixes" would be attached to 2.0.x.

-- 
Scott