Re: [ubl-lcsc] Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Further namespace issues

MHonArc v2.5.2 -->

ubl-ndrsc message

[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [Elist Home]

Subject: Re: [ubl-lcsc] Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Further namespace issues

From: Jon Bosak <>

To: 

Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:08:45 -0800 (PST)

I don't understand the implications of the suggested change well
enough to support this unless I hear from key members of NDR SC
that they are happy with it and I don't hear anyone objecting to
it.  (As I've made clear already, I don't consider complicating
the automatic schema generation to be an objection if we can get
to where we want to go with a reasonable amount of handwork.  What
I'm worried about here is whether the suggested change would
conflict with any of the thinking that went into NDR's current
position on scoping and re-use.)

Jon

   Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 14:42:17 -0700
   From: Dave Carlson <>
   Cc: , 

   I didn't comment on this earlier because I was not part of
   recent namespace discussion.  My preference is to make this
   change and to add an explicit namespace declaration to the
   reusable types schema, which is an easy manual edit to the
   schemas.

   The downside of this approach is that a UBL instance document
   will *always* need to have some of the elements prefixed with a
   namespace.  You can default either the main document schema
   (e.g. Order) or the reusable types schema, but not both.

   As I recall from discussions a year ago, there was concern that
   users would like to have a document instance without any tag
   prefixes.  I believe the current schemas would allow this,
   because the reusable types are included into each document
   schema (e.g. Order) and by implication into its namespace, then
   the entire document can use the default null namespace prefix.

   Is this just a short-term fix, and we will ultimatley have
   multiple namespaces in each document instance?

   -- Dave