RE: [ubl-dev] UBL- just how reliable are XSD based syntax checks?

["David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

Ken,

I was having a hard time figuring out what Tim had noted vis your
threads - thanks for clearing that.

From my stance - the issue over namespaces is nothing to do with tools -
and alot to do with people and sophistication with XML.

Simple XML without namespaces - like it or not - is a lowest common
denominator, for both tools and people.  I know that will be processed
by a simple lightweight XML processor, or import / export feature.

Just for the record - CAM is extremely smart in its ability to handle
namespaces - it will handle namespaced content that most other tools
will not.  This has been honed over a year and more of hard knocks with
sample transactions, good, bad and really ugly.  

Unfortunately namespaces can be used in ways the W3C does not perscribe.
 UBL fortunately is not in that bucket - but plenty of other XML is -
with conflicting default namespaces, inline namespaces and duplicate
and invalid namespace declarations.  That's just a fact of life I guess
- if people can mess it up - they will!

CAM is able to read in bad namespaced content and fix it and create
better namespace declarations for you so it processes with XPath
expressions that work correctly.

Anyway - seems you are insisting that pukka UBL needs its namespaces. 
The fact that CAM can handle that content with or without those
namespaces - interchangably - clearly something that does not interest
you - but may be of convenience to implementers.

Contrary wise - seems that you are OK with using downstream feeds that
collect data that ultimately ends up being packaged in real UBL - as a
convenience - just so long as those downstream feeds are not labelled
as "UBL".

Clearly this happens all the time with existing EDI interfaces for
example, or ones in cXML, BODS, or other legacy formats - and after
post-processing - should be acceptable to have their output cleansed
into UBL.

Cheers, DW

"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)
 

 -------- Original Message --------