Forum: railML.infrastructure » infrastructure "state"

Home » railML newsgroups » railML.infrastructure » infrastructure "state"

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

Re: infrastructure "state" [message #2028 is a reply to message #2025]

Mon, 03 December 2018 16:36

Thomas Nygreen JBD
Messages: 68
Registered: February 2017

Member

Dear all,

I strongly disagree with constraining @status=conceptual|planned to @disabled=true. That would conflict with the use case of simulating planned infrastructure, and break backwards compatibility. Any railML2.3 parser would interpret all planned elements as unusable.

It seems to me that there are different use cases requiring different values for @disabled when @status=conceptual|planned, depending on the relevant time frame.

For @status=operational|disabled|closed it seems more feasible to restrict the value for @disabled.

Best regards,
Thomas

Best regards,
Thomas Nygreen
Railway capacity engineer
Jernbanedirektoratet

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		infrastructure "state" By: christian.rahmig on Thu, 28 June 2018 08:46
		Re: infrastructure "state" By: christian.rahmig on Thu, 30 August 2018 08:50
		Re: infrastructure "state" By: Tobias Bregulla on Thu, 30 August 2018 16:49
		Re: infrastructure "state" By: christian.rahmig on Tue, 02 October 2018 12:55
		Re: infrastructure "state" By: Christian Rößiger on Thu, 08 November 2018 09:19
		Re: infrastructure "state" By: Christian Rößiger on Thu, 08 November 2018 11:50
		Re: infrastructure "state" By: christian.rahmig on Mon, 26 November 2018 16:28
		Re: infrastructure "state" By: Thomas Nygreen JBD on Mon, 03 December 2018 16:36
		Re: infrastructure "state" By: christian.rahmig on Wed, 19 December 2018 15:33

Previous Topic:	Use of <bufferStop>
Next Topic:	<track>@mainDir

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Mon May 06 23:28:45 CEST 2024