Martin,
Wooowha! We leapt too far here
IMHO.
From a simple extension to allow one small
capability to wholesale
replacement.
I believe we need to use these schema techniques
with caution.
OAGi found they got mixed results with this
feature of Schema
and the support provided by the different parsers
- and errors
generated. We definately do not want
to end up with a
schema that fails in certain
circumstances.
Remind me why we are using this substitution
group again - isn't
much more clear in this instance - and we can
just provide people
with parameters they can set to control the
timetoperform behaviour...?
Thanks, DW.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 11:59
AM
Subject: [ebxml-bp] Late Binding
Dear all,
I had
a discussion with Anders on the Late Binding problem and we decided that if
we changed the TimeToPerform and associated fields from Attributes to
Elements. The reason for this is it will allow the use of substitution
group style replacement of these fields to allow functionDefinition to be
used.
If
this is acceptable, may be we should make a wholesale move away from
attributes to elements throughout.
Martin
Roberts
xml designer,
BT Exact
e-mail: martin.me.roberts@bt.com
tel: +44(0) 1473
609785 clickdial
fax:
+44(0) 1473 609834
Intranet Site :http://twiki.btlabs.bt.co.uk/twiki
pp 16 Floor 5, Orion Building, Adastral Park, Martlesham,
Ipswich IP5 3RE, UK
British
Telecommunications plc
Registered office:
81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
Registered in
England no. 1800000
This electronic message contains information from British
Telecommunications plc which may be privileged or confidential. The
information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity
named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any
disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in
error, please notify us by telephone or email (to the numbers or address
above)
immediately.