Re: [ebxml-cppa] Adding #wildcard element to provide extensibility

[Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com>]

I propose to add wildcards of the form:

 

<any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">

 

A minimal extension would be to add this only to the CollaborationProtocolProfile and CollaborationProtocolAgreement elements. Another extreme possibility is to add such a sub-element to all elements within the CPP/A schema.

 

My recommendation is to take some middleground, to add a wildcard sub-element to each of the following:

• CollaborationProtocolProfile
• CollaborationProtocolAgreement
• Selected child elements of CollaborationProtocolProfile and CollaborationProtocolAgreement, including
• PartyInfo
• SimplePart
• Packaging
• All child elements of PartyInfo, including
• PartyId
• PartyRef
• CollaborationRole
• Certificate
• DeliveryChannel
• SecurityDetails
• Transport
• DocExchange
• OverrideMshActionBinding
• Any other element identified on a case by case basis. So far, this includes
• ActionContext (identified by Hima)

Unless I hear objections and/or other recommendations, I like to submit these schema changes to the 1.03 draft.

 

Regards,

-Arvola

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Weida <rweida@hotmail.com>
To: Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com>; ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org <ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: [ebxml-cppa] Adding #wildcard element to provide extensibility

Sounds good to me.  --  Tony

----- Original Message -----

From: Arvola Chan

To: ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org

Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 12:51 PM

Subject: [ebxml-cppa] Adding #wildcard element to provide extensibility

In the Messaging spec, #wildcard element content is supported in every SOAP extension as well as in all of their major repeating sub-elements.

 

To provide extensibility in the CPP/CPA structure, I think it may be useful to allow #wildcard extensions in most elements in the CPP/A schema.

 

I know RosettaNet's TPA Foundational Program would like to express message exchange requirements in terms of CPP/A. However, not enough initial work has been done to determine if there are major show stoppers. Allowing namespace qualified wildcard extensions may help industry groups like RosettaNet to adopt the use of CPP/A.

 

If there is support for this idea, I like to include such wildcard extensions in the 1.02 version of the spec.

 

Thanks,

-Arvola