RE: [ubl-ndrsc] Rule: 91

[Dan Vint <dvint@acord.org>]

I have heard this - from the London meeting right? I believe Eduardo is 
still planning on writing up the results of that and coming up with the 
"alternate implementation" which I don't think exists. Until we have a 
documented way of doing extensions/restrictions that works, I don't think 
you want to make any final determination on the use of redefine.

I'm still waiting for the notes on the final argument and solution. The one 
I heard is that redefine doesn't create a new namespace, if that is the 
only reason/problem, there is a workaround for it. Not very pretty but a 
workaround. This area of extension/restriction is not very pretty/complete 
to begin with and I thin that baby has been thrown out with the bath water 
on this decision.

..dan


At 03:09 PM 7/18/2003 -0400, CRAWFORD, Mark wrote:
> >
> > (I know that redefinition was discussed at one time, but don't recall
> > the conclusion.  We should make sure that any decision on
> > them is recorded.)
> >
>The CSC voted to not use redefine.
>
>Mark
>
>You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting 
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl-ndrsc/members/leave_workgroup.php