re: Tag naming syntax

[David RR Webber <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>]

Message text written by INTERNET:vincent.buller@and.com
>
I believe we can take the mandatory rules, although I would personally not
make an exception for PO_Box and just write POBox to put consistency over
"readability".

From the other rules, I would like to scrap the 25 character limit. IMO
it's
more consistent to forego on all abbreviations except acronyms. So not
allow
PstBx, but do use POBox.

About the typenames as suffix: I think its useful if used carefully, and it
should not be enforced. A "Street" is a "Street", and not a "StreetString"
or a "StreetName".

Any comments?

Cheers,
Vince
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

There's some goofy things in the OTA rules.  The need is first and 
foremost to have natural and intuitive tags names.

Too much emphasis is made on  tagnames - and particularly in the
case of the OTA - the lack of a registry hamstrings the approach - so
they even have version in the tagname - which is a mistake when
looking for interoperability and long term maintainance.

The ebXML approach is to use UID and External ID's as attributes
in the DTD/Schema.

This basically solves the problem completely.  Notice now you
can use any tagname - including language translations - but still
get back to the default semantics and definitions (the REAL need
in business integration).

I would strongly recommend a lightweight approach to 
tagnames - emphazing natural familiar names - and then
using the UID to exactly label each element for referencing of
the full definitions in an ebXML Registry as a CoreComponent
reference.

DW.