Re: [ubl-dev] Re: About CodeList for UnitCode

["G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>]

At 2006-03-19 20:44 +0000, Fraser Goffin wrote:
> >However, the method by which a schema expresses a code list impacts
> >on being able to extend values.
>
>Yep, thats what I was getting at.
>
> >UnitCode is one of these, but that it is an attribute is irrelevant
> >to the issue of it being extensible.
>
>Ok. My point was aimed at the suggestion that in order to identify the
>'extended' value a NEW attribute would be required since the official
>attribute would contain 'ZZ'.

Right ... but you bring up an interesting point ... what if the 
information item is an element?

If the information item is an attribute, the change is obvious ... 
but as you note when I suggested the addition of the privateCode= 
attribute, Sylvia indicated that violated rules, so the addition of 
the attribute would have to be done by an extension as in vt:privateCode=.

If the information item is an element, then there is some asymmetry 
with the vt:privateCode= being an attribute, but I think that 
asymmetry would be better than trying to coerce a new element information item.

>However given Sylvia Webb's comment this this point is obviously moot.

I always enjoy a good moot!

. . . . . . . . . . Ken

--
Upcoming XSLT/XSL-FO hands-on courses: Washington,DC 2006-06-12/16
World-wide on-site corporate, govt. & user group XML/XSL training.
G. Ken Holman                 mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com
Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/u/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0    +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
Male Cancer Awareness Aug'05  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/u/bc
Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal