[cddlm] proposed resolution on two issues

[Jun Tatemura]

I propose two modifications on the spec to address issues
we have discussed. I hope this will not be a huge change...

[1] Remove "import with namespace specified" from the spec.

This has been introduced to address namespace conflict at the user
side. However, it turned out that this introduces complication we did 
not initially
expect, as pointed out in the discussion with Steve and Rakesh.
Since namespace itself is meant to address name conflict, why don't we
let namespace work on that. Instead of making it more complicated with 
patches,
I propose to remove cdl:import/@namespace from the spec
and add a "guidance" (or best practices) as follows:

-- "When the provider publishes a CDL document for component 
description, which
is likely to be combined with ones from different providers, the 
provider SHOULD
use a unique namespace for the toplevel elements."

The user side should stop worrying about importing something into a new 
namespace at
his own risk and start blaming the careless provider who published 
conflicting names.

[2] On prototype resolution, treat a reference and a value interchangeably:

On prototype resolution,
(1) a value reference (a pair of @cdl:refroot and @cdl:ref)
is overridden by either a value reference or a property value (child nodes);
(2) a property value (child nodes) is overridden by either
a value reference or a property value.

--
I will be attending tomorrow's call to discuss.

Best Regards,
Jun Tatemura