RE: [ciq] CIQ using UBL NDR?

[Max Voskob <max.voskob@paradise.net.nz>]

 FYI
XML Spy is using its own validator and it takes xs:any alrigh, but they have an old bug with
skip/lax/strict options for namespaces.

Cheers,
Max

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Meadows [mailto:mmeadows@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 20 October 2004 00:39
To: Max Voskob; ciq@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ciq] CIQ using UBL NDR?


Max is right that the MSXML parser will understand the tag.

I'm not educated enough yet on the matter to make a call on the UBL NDR issue specifically, but I
agree 'xs:any' should be eliminated.

My 2¢, and I never thought about it before this string started, but including 'xs:any' will require
a lot of design time effort for anyone wanting to utilize our efforts.

Best to eliminate if at all possible.

Rgds,
Mark




-----Original Message-----
From: Max Voskob [mailto:max.voskob@paradise.net.nz]
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 11:24 PM
To: ciq@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ciq] CIQ using UBL NDR?

 Hido, 

Parsers from MS Windows part of the world handle it alright. I have never had any problems.
What parsers exactly are you talking about?

Cheers,
Max


-----Original Message-----
From: Hido Hasimbegovic [mailto:hido.hasimbegovic@customware.net]
Sent: Tuesday, 19 October 2004 15:53
To: ciq@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ciq] CIQ using UBL NDR?

Hi Max

I think both "xs:anyAttribute" and "xsd:any" should go. Implementation time, they cause no end to
problems. Parsers will fail the schema unless instructed to ignore "violation of the unique particle
attribute rule".