Re: [codelist-comment] Separation of document and application conformance clauses

["Anthony B. Coates (Miley Watts)" <abcoates@mileywatts.com>]

I do have a concern that if the rules were to be grouped by category,  
rather than in "rule number" order as they are now, we would then have  
people asking for the rules to be back in "rule number" order as they  
were.  It would also be possible to do it both ways, i.e. have the rules  
both in rule order and (repeated) by category; this would make the  
document slightly longer, but as that part of the specification text is  
generated directly from the Schema, it wouldn't cause any quality control  
issues.

However, what would *really* help the TC enormously is to have many  
opinions on this, rather than just having Ken's and my opinions, so please  
let us know what *you* would prefer.

Cheers, Tony.

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:14:28 +0100, G. Ken Holman  
<gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com> wrote:

> In section 4.4 Conformance I note that the list of rules interleaves  
> both document-only rules with application-only rules.
>
> As a developer interested in only document-only rules for the UBL  
> project, I would have liked to see these separated so that I can focus  
> on them only and not have to find them, hoping not to miss any.
>
> Then, as a developer of context/value association stylesheets accessing  
> the files in another project as would an application, I would have liked  
> to see those rules separated for the same reason.
>
> I don't really care about the numbering ... having them grouped would  
> allow me to make an easy checklist for each project.
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . Ken

-- 
Anthony B. Coates
Senior Partner
Miley Watts LLP
Experts In Data
UK: +44 (20) 8816 7700, US: +1 (239) 344 7700
Mobile/Cell: +44 (79) 0543 9026
Data standards participant: genericode, ISO 20022 (ISO 15022 XML),  
UN/CEFACT, MDDL, FpML, UBL.
http://www.mileywatts.com/