SV: SV: [ubl] Discussion XSD implementation of extensions

>In retrospect I'm really liking this suggestion, 
>Bryan, of a container element.  And that's 
>improving the aesthetics for me too:  consider 
>that with the extension element each and every 
>UBL-defined object has a UBL-defined 
>sibling.  

I'm in agreement with this. 

>So, I now recommend we make the ExtensionContent 
>element last child of the UBLExtension element 
>mandatory and allow it to be empty.

Don't know if it should be allowed to be empty, despite the benefits to
streaming processing. I don't want things to be done in a particular way to
benefit one processing model. 

What do you think the chances are of people outputting extension elements
that are empty? Without extension content?

Also I would think that would make it difficult or less optimizable for some
implementors that might want different handling of extensions or not
stream-based handling of the format.



Cheers,
Bryan Rasmussen