Re: [ubl] RE: [ubl-dev] Simpler-Than-UBL Design Rules

Good morning, Steve,

I'm afraid that while on vacation I've missed a couple of your notes 
and not had the time to respond with details, but I do have a quick comment.

At 2007-02-08 03:47 -0700,  wrote:
>Forwarded from ubl-dev, just to show what I might have
>to do with UBL to get it to work nicely with certain
>emerging technologies.

I'm worried that this is "breaking" UBL ... multiple namespaces are a 
part of UBL whether we like it or not, and creating a "one-namespace" 
or "no-namespace" version of the instance *isn't* UBL nor should it ever be.

>Subsetting does not seem to be
>enough and it looks like (yet to be really sure of it)
>customization of the actual xml design may be necessary
>in these cases.

I'm not sure how to weigh "necessary".  If you are doing this just to 
accommodate some tools, regardless of how easy that makes it, I don't 
believe that is justification for changing the definition of UBL.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ken

--
World-wide corporate, govt. & user group XML, XSL and UBL training
RSS feeds:     publicly-available developer resources and training
G. Ken Holman                 mailto:
Crane Softwrights Ltd.          http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0    +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
Male Cancer Awareness Aug'05  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/o/bc
Legal business disclaimers:  http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal