Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Rule: 96 Two Schema

[Chin Chee-Kai <cheekai@softml.net>]

Sorry, Tony, I am VERY STRONGLY against having more than
ONE normative schema.

Taking a step further based on proposed "normative optimized
schema without documentation", why can't people ask for 
"normative optimized schema without documentation AND
without whitespaces" (ie, one long line of "optimized"
non-fat milk?), and why can't people ask for "normative
optimized schema in compressed WBXML binary format",
and all sorts of other "normative" versions?

Where does that stop??

So, no, please don't open the pandora box.


Best Regards,
Chin Chee-Kai
SoftML
Tel: +65-6820-2979
Fax: +65-6743-7875
Email: cheekai@SoftML.Net
http://SoftML.Net/


On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Anthony B. Coates wrote:

>>** Reply to message from Dan Vint <dvint@acord.org> on Tue, 15 Jul 2003
>>09:33:16 -0700
>>
>>I am *completely* opposed to the suggestion that users can filter annotations
>>out of their Schemas if required.  My experience is that only the < 1% of
>>people who take part in XML committees have the confidence and experience for
>>that.  Worse, it just introduces an unnecessary, globally-distributed quality
>>control issue.  If it is so easy to filter out the documentation, then let us
>>do it just once ourselves for everyone on the planet, and issue two equivalent
>>normative Schemas, full-fat and low-fat.  I'm happy to contribute an XSLT
>>script or Java class to do the job, if it is too hard to do from the Schema
>>generation tools.
>>
>>	Cheers,
>>		Tony.
>>
>>> At 10:27 AM 7/15/2003 -0500, Burcham, Bill wrote:
>>> >I think we should remove this rule.  A user can filter out annotations if
>>> >they are unwanted.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ok then the implication of this is that the only schema that UBL sends is
>>> one with full documentation/annotation. I suppose I can live with that, but
>>> again I would state this as a rule that the schemas are fully documented.
>>>
>>> ..dan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >-----Original Message-----
>>> >From: Chin Chee-Kai [mailto:cheekai@softml.net]
>>> >Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 9:52 AM
>>> >To: UBL-NDR
>>> >Subject: Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Rule: 96 Two Schema
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Objection : Stating two versions of schemas that are
>>> >             otherwise the same except for documentation
>>> >             is a user-level optimisation/preference issue
>>> >             that shouldn't become a hard-rule from UBL/NDR.
>>> >
>>> >This is not to say that we cannot publish as a non-normative add-on, or
>>> >reading aid or optimized version (assuming
>>> >documented version is normative).
>>> >
>>> >Suggest removing it.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Best Regards,
>>> >Chin Chee-Kai
>>====
>>Anthony B. Coates
>>London Market Systems Limited
>>33 Throgmorton Street, London, EC2N 2BR
>>http://www.londonmarketsystems.com/
>>mailto:abcoates@londonmarketsystems.com
>>Mobile/Cell: +44 (79) 0543 9026
>>[MDDL Editor (Market Data Definition Language), http://www.mddl.org/]
>>[FpML Arch WG Member (Financial Products Markup Language), http://www.fpml.org/]
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>This Email may contain confidential information and/or copyright material and is intended for the use of the addressee only.
>>Any unauthorised use may be unlawful. If you receive this Email by mistake please advise the sender immediately by using the reply  facility in your e-mail software.
>>Email is not a secure method of communication and London Market Systems Limited cannot accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this message or any attachment(s). Please examine this email for virus infection, for which London Market Systems Limited accepts no responsibility. If verification of this email is sought then please request a hard copy. Unless otherwise stated any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not represent those of London Market Systems Limited.
>>
>>You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-ndrsc/members/leave_workgroup.php
>>
>>