MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
ubl-ndrsc message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Instance Design for NDR document
From: "Eve L. Maler" <>
To: "GLACE, Jessica" <>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:06:58 -0400
Yep, we've actually always assumed that there would be some
instance-related things to talk about (e.g., whether PIs should be
allowed). So I agree that, if/when we add this information, it would be
nice to segregate it into a separate part.
Eve
GLACE, Jessica wrote:
> 1. Should there be standard UBL documentation found in an Instance?
> 2. Does it matter what the Instance Namespace prefix is for the UBL
> namespace? Should we recommend or enforce the prefix for the instance?
>
> 3. This is where the empty element idea would be addressed as well. Is
> it fine that an instance just have no element at all when its optional
> or do we need to add the nil att and if we do is nil required or optional?
>
> The point of the above is not to provide an all-inclusive list of
> issues, but to try and highlight my point. We are developing a set of
> design rules for a standard. Our design rules need to ensure that
> different developers can use them to create cookie cutter 80/20 UBL
> schemas. Otherwise we will never have the look and feel of a standard.
>
> For instance documents against the 80/20 schemas, they must also have
> the same look and feel of a standard - regardless of how they are being
> processed or reviewed.
>
> Regards,
> Jessica
--
Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems cell +1 781 883 5917
XML Web Services / Industry Initiatives eve.maler @ sun.com
