Stream: conformance
Topic: Multiple Bindings
Grahame Grieve (Jun 01 2016 at 05:56):
I just commented on GF#9195
Chris Grenz (Jun 03 2016 at 20:08):
I don't know how I'd compare bindings to see if profiles were compatible
An added binding could either:
a. Restrict an existing binding to a subset
b. Add an additional constraint, leaving the original binding
In either case, aggregating the bindings wouldn't be functionally valid since in a. a code valid in the profile would also be valid in the base.
I don't know how you'd know how to generate a UI. What do you do with multiple bindings?
I'm assuming that you're currently populating a "drop-down" list with valid values from a single list. However, IF the situation exists where I need both a local coding and a standard coding (via slicing of coding), how would you render? Probably ask for one of each?
The complex situation is where a single code may satisfy many bindings. I guess the UI will have to take a coding, check it against all bindings, and then ask for more if needed? This is already the case though...
what happens during snapshot derivation? Those rules are already complex
They get simple - just aggregate bindings. If you can determine that one VS is a subset of another, you could rationalize, but leaving them all doesn't break anything...
Grahame Grieve (Jun 05 2016 at 11:15):
unfortunately it does matter. I have to get it right. :-(
Chris Grenz (Jun 06 2016 at 14:30):
While I certainly feel the pain of adapting existing tooling, in this situation the question, I think, is more about communicating the real world situation. If multiple bindings are required (common, well understood use case), then communicating them with multiple binding tags is the clear way to communicate that. The tools must then figure out what how to accommodate. I know we're shooting for "easy to implement", but this makes the other side (content implementation) MUCH harder in these scenarios (forces @profile slicing).
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
