RE: COMPLEXITY BIG ISSUE

["Duane Nickull" <duane@xmlglobal.com>]

<Troy>
What group of humans? English speaking only? This is to enable what? XML
should
 not be seen by a human if it works.
</Troy>

The UN, who is sponsoring the initiative, has three official languages.
They are English, Russian and French.

It has been discussed that we may possibly adopt  a system where

ELEMENT=(EnglishTerm || FrenchTerm || RussianTerm )

The message structure should be reasonably intuitive.  This means that a
human being should be able to somewhat decifer a message.  This is very
important for manually constructed messages, error checking, archiving and
searching.  It also reduces the system architectural complexity.

In short - I am totally against using numerical values for Elements.  We do
not want to create another cryptic taxonomy.

EXAMPLE:

If you encounter:

<ebXML>
  <Header>
     <From>Foo Inc.</From>
     <To>Bar Corp.</To>
  </Header>
  <Message Type="Index">
   Blah
  </Message>
</ebXML>

OR:

<ebXML>
  <En-tête>
     <Du>Foo Inc.</Du>
     <A>Bar Corp></A>
  </En-tête>
  <Communique Tapent="facture">
   Blah
  </Communique>
</ebXML>

This is certainly more intuitive than

<123>
  <3422-3>
     <993-44321-2>Foo Inc.<993-44321-2>
     <128-2>Bar Corp.</128-2>
...

You get the idea.

Also - in the event that one of the elements was mal formed,  you would need
a translation tool to verify the numerical equivalent of your elements.  Not
a good Idea.

Duane Nickull