[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] Code list schema
[abcoates@londonmarketsystems.com:] | I would suggest that for the moment, UBL should just use the | "simple code list" facilities of the format, and avoid the | "derived code list" facilities. That is to say, take the whole | Schema, but use only what is required. I'm keen for UBL & FpML to | be using the same code list Schema, rather than each using a | different version, if possible. Me too. My worry is that one of the agencies we're going to be relying on to use our standard code list schema for the specificaton of their code lists will at some point release a version that does use the derived code list facilities and that a user of that version expecting to just plug in the new release will find that the XSLT we provide suddenly doesn't work with it. If it's possible to rig the XSLT so that it produces the same Schematron assertion in the second case as in the first (by simply ignoring the extra stuff), then I guess we're OK. Jon
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]