Re: schema in [ebxml-msg] v2.0 rev b, etc.

David:

 

I am not sure if we really want to leave the following 
unchanged in the schema:

 

1.
<import 
namespace="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#"              
schemaLocation="http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/schema/xmldsig-core-schema.xsd"/>

2.
<import 
namespace="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" schemaLocation="http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/schema/xlink.xsd"/>

3.
<import 
namespace="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/"          
  
schemaLocation="http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-msg/schema/envelope.xsd"/>

With respect to 
#1 above, please see 

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-msg/200202/msg00154.html

I think we should be referencing the official version of 
xmldsig-core-schema.xsd instead of the snapshot we have been maintaining at our 
web site. 

With respect to #2 above, I am not able to find any official 
xlink.xsd on the W3C web site. We will have to continue to use our own version 
located at our web site unless someone can identify the location for an official 
version of xlink.xsd.

With respect to #3 above, please see

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-msg/200202/msg00056.html

We may want to use "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" 
as the schema location since that is the official SOAP 1.1 schema. The only 
potential issue is that the former includes Annotation and you have previously 
mentioned that some parsers used by members of the interop team cannot deal with 
Annotation.

I also notice two minor problems in the References 
section:

1. The correct URL for BPSS should be http://www.ebxml.org/specs/ebBPSS.pdf

2. Xlink has been a W3C Recommendation since June 27, 2001. 
See http://www.w3.org/TR/xlink/

-Arvola

  
-----Original Message-----
From: 
  David Fischer <>
To: 
  Ian. C. Jones (E-mail) <>
Cc: 
  ebXML Msg <>
Date: 
  Tuesday, February 19, 2002 1:02 PM
Subject: [ebxml-msg] v2.0 rev 
  b

  
Ian, 
  

  
 

  
Here is 
  what we have at the moment.  I have included both an MSWord document and 
  a PDF.  The PDF has change control off and the MSWord has it on.  
  

  
 

  
I did 
  not accept the changes from Rev A so both Rev A and Rev B changes 
  show.  In my copy, Rev A changes are in Blue and Rev B changes are in 
  Red.  In MSWord, if you put your cursor over the change, it will say 
  "David V Fischer" on the Rev A changes and "David Fischer" on the Rev B 
  changes.  It would probably be appropriate, if anyone wants to make quick 
  comments in the next day or so, to use the line numbers in the 
  PDF.

  
 

  
I don't 
  think either of these documents is appropriate to vote on.  Arvola 
  said he would review the schema (Appendix A) and let me know what further 
  changes I need to make to align with his copy.

  
 

  
I don't 
  know where we are on the change control document.  I have not looked at 
  anything since Rev A but I have made a couple of changes based upon the 
  conference calls and the eMail list (mostly related to Errata locations and 
  OPTIONAL treatment and Chris' item 229).  The easiest way to see these is 
  to look for changes marked in red (at least it is red on my 
  PC).

  
 

  
One 
  final thought.  If we vote on this and it passes, I would like to suggest 
  we change the version of the last document to v1.9 and this one to 
  v2.0.

  
 

  
Regards,

  
 

  
David 
  Fischer

  
Drummond 
  Group

  
ebXML-MS 
  Editor.