SV: [ubl] Suggestions for an UBL ExtensibleContent area

["Bryan Rasmussen" <BRS@itst.dk>]

>In my role as Secretariat Manager for SC34 I've helped the authors 
>marshal the evolution of the above into the standardized 
>Namespace-based Validation Dispatching Language (NVDL) ISO/IEC 
>19757-4 - part 4 of Document Schema Definition Languages (DSDL):

>   http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0694c.htm

excellent news! I had no idea it was up to a draft yet, I thought it was only
under discussion. 

>I have shared with others that I think NVDL would be the best basis 
>for the customization of UBL using namespaces so have pointed them in 
>this direction.
I'm not averse to this idea, but I think it would be problematic for others
here. 

>My gut feel is that using NVDL we would probably not need an explicit 
>area for extensible content as the entire instance would be 
>extensible
yes, but then we would need to define how we were going to deal with
extensibility if NVDL were our extensibility mechanism. I suppose that would
then require that everyone sent the document through NVDL processor first. 

>  Explicitly creating 
>such a section might lead to the impression that extensions could 
>only be added in that section.
I think though that if one had an area set aside for extensions, via use of
xsd:any, that one could use NVDL is one wanted to handle these things, or
other methods. 


>>), and application usage (transformation). This is more the kind of 
>>thing that should be moved to HISC if ExtensibleContent was accepted.

>I'm not confident that validation issues belong in HISC.  The code 
>list value validation work I'm doing is in a task group of UBL, not of HISC.

Probably right, I was thinking in the context of HISC because the examples I
was working on were getting very into various possible implementation
strategies.