Our current rule is to name the complex types by removing the period and
space, removing the "Details", and appending "Type", so you get
"OrderType" as a UBL Name. The UBL Name should definitely be used as
the complex type name...
Eve
Burcham, Bill wrote:
> (narrowed disribution to NDRSC)
>
> Right _on_ Gunther! I had a look at the Order spreadsheet and it looks
> good. Peeked at the schema too and that looks good too. You've come a long
> way in a couple months!
>
> The one thing I request, Gunther is that your scripts use the "UBL Name"
> rather than the "Dictionary Entry Name" for the XSD complex type name. The
> effect would be that instead of seeing complex types with names like
> OrderDetails, AddressDetails -- we'd see complex types with names like
> "Order" and "Address".
>
> Note I am _not_ quibbling about the need to append the word "Details" to the
> end of the dictionary entry name as per rule C32 from CCTS 1.85. I'm just
> suggesting we use the UBL Name instead of the dictionary entry name.
>
> Would that be ok?
--
Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems cell +1 781 354 9441
Web Technologies and Standards eve.maler @ sun.com
