[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Instance Design for NDR document
OK, OK, you both win, I give up -- I keep forgetting how unsatisfactory schemas are when it comes to clearly express constraints... Eve L. Maler wrote: > 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 > > -- Eduardo Gutentag | e-mail: eduardo.gutentag@Sun.COM XML Technology Center | Phone: (510) 986-3651 Sun Microsystems Inc. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC