MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
ubl-ndrsc message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl-ndrsc] Instance Design for NDR document
From: "GLACE, Jessica" <>
To:
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:34:33 -0400
Title: RE: [ubl-ndrsc] Instance Design for NDR document
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
