[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] RE: [ubl-dev] Simpler-Than-UBL Design Rules
Good morning, Steve, I'm afraid that while on vacation I've missed a couple of your notes and not had the time to respond with details, but I do have a quick comment. At 2007-02-08 03:47 -0700, stephen.green@systml.co.uk wrote: >Forwarded from ubl-dev, just to show what I might have >to do with UBL to get it to work nicely with certain >emerging technologies. I'm worried that this is "breaking" UBL ... multiple namespaces are a part of UBL whether we like it or not, and creating a "one-namespace" or "no-namespace" version of the instance *isn't* UBL nor should it ever be. >Subsetting does not seem to be >enough and it looks like (yet to be really sure of it) >customization of the actual xml design may be necessary >in these cases. I'm not sure how to weigh "necessary". If you are doing this just to accommodate some tools, regardless of how easy that makes it, I don't believe that is justification for changing the definition of UBL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ken -- World-wide corporate, govt. & user group XML, XSL and UBL training RSS feeds: publicly-available developer resources and training G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/ Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0 +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995) Male Cancer Awareness Aug'05 http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]