ubl-ndrsc — archive

[Eve Maler]

I should be clearer: I was assuming that all types would continue to be global, and was proposing that a carefully selected set of elements would be local instead of global. Does that still sound interesting? I don't think we've ever seriously considered anonymous types... Eve Chin Chee-Kai wrote: > On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Eve L. Maler wrote: > > >>>Hi folks-- I'm trying to keep up with all your progress (and failing), >>>but look forward to calling in tomorrow. >>> >>>I note below that Gunther mentioned the problem with the many different >>>IDs with different restrictions all needing to have a different element >>>name with global. As I proposed several weeks ago and in my Word >>>comments on his local vs. global paper, perhaps a hybrid solution is the >>>way to go: global in general, but local for selected leaf-node elements >>>where this situation obtains. Perhaps ID and Code are the only good >>>candidates, or perhaps there are others. > > > Yes, agree; global type and local elements might be the way to go. > > The core stuff and heavily reused (as far as we can determine at > this point) could be prime candidates for global types. -- Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190 Sun Microsystems cell +1 781 354 9441 Web Technologies and Standards eve.maler @ sun.com