[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] Groups - ICS-201-draft0.2.xsd uploaded
Ok, so are you agreeing or disagreeing with what I proposed? It sounds like you agree that we should not attempt to define an XSD (schema) for ICS 201, but then you mention preparing a process spec and not address the front end (GUI), which is what I *think* we can do with XForms. Or are you saying that even touching this with a 10 foot pole (ie: XForms too) is way to close? Just wanting to make sure I am not misunderstanding. Personally, I could go either way. I just know that I have a comfort issue with the XSD. Jury is out on the XForms idea - it was just a thought that I felt was better than defining an XSD. On Apr 1, 2004, at 2:25 PM, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > I agree with Rick. Don't open liaisons or set dependencies > on other specifications and standards unless absolutely necessary, > meaning, your specification can't be used without them. > > 1. Your specification will be tied to the evolution of the > other specification, and > > 2. It might lose. > > len > > > From: CONSULTRAC [mailto:rcarlton@consultrac.com] > > I think that our attempting to define a "holistic" XML-based ICS 201 > is a > flawed approach and beyond our scope. Perhaps we should prepare an > XML-API > process spec that acknowledges the specific elements and name types > referenced in the ratified NIMS-construct, but leave the front end > formatting to the marketplace. In my view this places us where we > belong; at > the "standardized data exchange protocol" level rather than the > "applications/forms development" level. The latter posture suggests > certain > product biases that I do not think we want attached to the committee's > work. > > -- R. Allen Wyke Chair, OASIS Emergency Management TC emergency-tc@earthlink.net
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]