ubl — archive

Re: [ubl] Re: what to do about namespaces in schemas

From: Anne Hendry
To: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:44:00 -0000

 MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

ubl message

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

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [ubl] Re: what to do about namespaces in schemas

From: Anne Hendry <[email protected]>
To: Eduardo Gutentag <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:57:34 -0700

Hi all,

Looking at  Mike's email and the rule, the word 'schema' is contained in 
the namespace declaration before the name/version of the particular 
schema appears.  I don't see that word (schema) in your following 
examples, Eduardo/Stephen, but assume that it should be included as 
shown in the rule example.  Or is the inclusion of the word 'schema' 
redundant?

Also, then, please, do we change from 'tc' to 'specification' in the 
next few days before what we consider the the final set of schemas is 
produced by EF (within the next two weeks)?  If not, then precisely at 
what future  point?

Thanks,

-Anne

Eduardo Gutentag wrote:

>
>
> On 07/19/2004 01:04 PM, Stephen Green wrote:
>
>> Eduardo
>>
>> Thanks for these comments. I thought, looking at the rule, that it 
>> should be
>> changed to xmlns="urn:oasis:names:specification:ubl:Order:1:0"
>
>
> oops, my mistake, you are right.
>
>> or is that what it should be prior to standards approval?
>>
>> Also, should we be going back to prefixing with draft numbers until 
>> we are
>> sure
>> we have a bug-free set of Schemas?
>
>
> That would be prudent, certainly, but the moment it is presented for 
> membership
> approval it should be as ...Order:1:0
>
> If it is rejected as a Standard by membership and a later version is 
> subsequently
> re-presented for Standard approval, the version number would or would 
> not change
> depending on whether the Schemas are touched or not.
>
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>