Re: [regrep] Implementing CCTS in Registry - further thoughts

[Farrukh Najmi <farrukh.najmi@sun.com>]

Matthew MacKenzie wrote:

> I think I am a moderate in this debate, because I think the proper 
> course of action involves acknowledging CCTS (or a serialization 
> format therof) in the specification by including a non-normative 
> appendix containing a content indexing stylesheet (which I will take 
> an AI on). 

Matt,

I think a non-normative Best Practice paper on registering Core 
Components in an ebXML Registry is a greta idea and I give it a 
resounding +1.

My issue is that valuable as it definitely is, such a paper does not 
belong in ebXML Registry specifications.

>
>
> The benefit of doing this is that we do not compromise the 
> architecture by doing it, and we get to explicitly mention CCTS in the 
> specification which should make some people happy. 

+1

> I think Farrukh even has a CPPA content indexing stylesheet hanging 
> around, so we would not be playing favorites. 

The above may be useful input but has no standing since it is not even 
an approved Best Prcative paper. But applying Matt's good suggestion, I 
can see there being a BP on registering CPPA in ebXMl Registry.

>
>
> What does everyone think?
>
> -Matt
>

-- 
Regards,
Farrukh (aspiring moderate ;-) ) Najmi