MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
ubl message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] Re: what to do about namespaces in schemas
From: Anne Hendry <>
To: Eduardo Gutentag <>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:57:34 -0700
Hi all,
Looking at Mike's email and the rule, the word 'schema' is contained in
the namespace declaration before the name/version of the particular
schema appears. I don't see that word (schema) in your following
examples, Eduardo/Stephen, but assume that it should be included as
shown in the rule example. Or is the inclusion of the word 'schema'
redundant?
Also, then, please, do we change from 'tc' to 'specification' in the
next few days before what we consider the the final set of schemas is
produced by EF (within the next two weeks)? If not, then precisely at
what future point?
Thanks,
-Anne
Eduardo Gutentag wrote:
>
>
> On 07/19/2004 01:04 PM, Stephen Green wrote:
>
>> Eduardo
>>
>> Thanks for these comments. I thought, looking at the rule, that it
>> should be
>> changed to xmlns="urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:Order:1:0"
>
>
> oops, my mistake, you are right.
>
>> or is that what it should be prior to standards approval?
>>
>> Also, should we be going back to prefixing with draft numbers until
>> we are
>> sure
>> we have a bug-free set of Schemas?
>
>
> That would be prudent, certainly, but the moment it is presented for
> membership
> approval it should be as ...Order:1:0
>
> If it is rejected as a Standard by membership and a later version is
> subsequently
> re-presented for Standard approval, the version number would or would
> not change
> depending on whether the Schemas are touched or not.
>
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
