Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Instance Design for NDR document

["Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@sun.com>]

Yep, we've actually always assumed that there would be some 
instance-related things to talk about (e.g., whether PIs should be 
allowed).  So I agree that, if/when we add this information, it would be 
nice to segregate it into a separate part.

	Eve

GLACE, Jessica wrote:
> 1. Should there be standard UBL documentation found in an Instance?
> 2. Does it matter what the Instance Namespace prefix is for the UBL 
> namespace? Should we recommend or enforce the prefix for the instance?
> 
> 3. This is where the empty element idea would be addressed as well. Is 
> it fine that an instance just have no element at all when its optional 
> or do we need to add the nil att and if we do is nil required or optional?
> 
> The point of the above is not to provide an all-inclusive list of 
> issues, but to try and highlight my point.  We are developing a set of 
> design rules for a standard.  Our design rules need to ensure that 
> different developers can use them to create cookie cutter 80/20 UBL 
> schemas. Otherwise we will never have the look and feel of a standard. 
> 
> For instance documents against the 80/20 schemas, they must also have 
> the same look and feel of a standard - regardless of how they are being 
> processed or reviewed.
> 
> Regards,
> Jessica

-- 
Eve Maler                                        +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems                            cell +1 781 883 5917
XML Web Services / Industry Initiatives      eve.maler @ sun.com