[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: PRD3 suggestion: sample instances with unconventional namespace prefixes
I gather there is a public perception that the UBL committee's *convention* of using namespace prefixes is somehow regarded as a *standard* way of prefixing element names mandated in UBL. Of course this is not the case, but, sadly, this is the perception. In XML any namespace can use any prefix, and at any point in an XML document one of the namespaces may be associated with no prefix (called the default namespace). I feel this warrants supplementing our XML instance directory with the attached four XML-equivalent instances to the UBL-Invoice-2.0-Example.xml found in PRD1 and PRD2. I say "XML-equivalent" because applications should be ignoring prefixes and using only the combination of namespace URI and local-name for each element, regardless of any different use of namespace prefixes. These five instances have very different uses of namespace prefixes, but identical uses of URI/local-name combinations. Every UBL application should treat all five documents as having the identical processed information to work on. They all validate with the UBL schemas. UBL-Invoice-2.0-Example.xml - (PRD1) document element in the default namespace UBL-Invoice-2.0-Example-NS1.xml - no elements in the default namespace UBL-Invoice-2.0-Example-NS2.xml - basics in the default namespace UBL-Invoice-2.0-Example-NS3.xml - aggregates in the default namespace UBL-Invoice-2.0-Example-NS4.xml - embedded and overloaded use of prefixes I have the time to add these to PRD2 if Jon hasn't yet documented the revised set of sample instances, but I'm assuming we just put these in PRD3. However, an argument for *not* including such instances is that it is not the role of the UBL specification to be tutorial in nature. Yet I'm confident such examples will be very useful to UBL users when they can go to their application developers with a set of unconventional documents that are still UBL valid and found in the UBL distribution (thus giving them some legitimacy). Their developers may think the users's applications are ready for the real world, but the real world has many and varied and bizarre ways that namespaces are used. I would like to discuss this on this week's calls. . . . . . . . . . . Ken
UBL-Invoice-2.0-Example-NS1.xml
UBL-Invoice-2.0-Example-NS3.xml
UBL-Invoice-2.0-Example-NS2.xml
UBL-Invoice-2.0-Example-NS4.xml
-- Contact us for world-wide XML consulting & instructor-led training Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/ G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]