Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Instance Design for NDR document

OK, OK, you both win, I give up

--
I keep forgetting how unsatisfactory schemas are when it comes to clearly express constraints...
Eve L. Maler wrote:
> Yep, we've actually always assumed that there would be some
> instance-related things to talk about (e.g., whether PIs should be
> allowed). So I agree that, if/when we add this information, it would be
> nice to segregate it into a separate part. >
> Eve >
> GLACE, Jessica wrote: > >> 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 > >

--
Eduardo Gutentag e-mail: 
XML Technology Center
Phone: (510) 986-3651

Sun Microsystems Inc.