Re: OTA Tag name rules

[Sam Hunting <shunting@ecomxml.com>]

And common coding style across ebXML DTDs should be discussed where?

S.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Murray Maloney" <murray@muzmo.com>
To: "Krishna Sankar" <ksankar@cisco.com>
Cc: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>; "Sam Hunting"
<shunting@ecomxml.com>; "Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM" <srh@us.ibm.com>;
<ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 11:21 AM
Subject: RE: OTA Tag name rules


> Why is this even being discussed in this Working Group?
> Architecture, as far as I can tell, has no responsibility
> for deciding these details.
>
> At 11:09 AM 9/29/00 -0700, Krishna Sankar wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> > I agree. Adding version numbers to tag names is not optimal.
> >
> > Can we not add the VersionNumber as an attribute - something like
> ><Cust.Pay.CreditCard VersionNumber="1.0">, so that whoever wants to use
> >version numbers can use them and it does not break the stylesheets et al.
> >
> > cheers
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
> >Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 10:49 AM
> >To: Sam Hunting
> >Cc: Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM; ebxml-architecture@lists.ebxml.org
> >Subject: Re: OTA Tag name rules
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Sam Hunting wrote:
> >>
> >> > Prefixes will use a period (.) as a separator.
> >>
> >> Are there advocates for this practice on ebXML?
> >>
> >> > Example: <v1.Cust.Pay.CreditCard>
> >
> >Yech! Putting the version in the tag name seems to me to
> >be a colossal mistake. I could see adding a version attribute
> >to each element (possibly) but having different tag names
> >would necessarily require code modifications if in nothing
> >other than XSLT stylesheets. Not a good idea, IMHO. I certainly
> >would hope that ebXML would NOT adopt this practice or standard!
> >
> >> > OTA's tag naming conventions include the specification version and
> >content
> >> > hierarchy as prefixes and, as a result, will require greater
bandwidth
> >to
> >> transmit than tags with
> >> > more cryptic codes. OTA made the decision to include this much text
in
> >the
> >> tags
> >> > so OTA could convert the data model to XML-Schema as
> >> > easily as possible. XML-Schema will not need the context or hierarchy
> >> included in the tag
> >> > names, which will reduce their size.
> >>
> >> Is there anyone on the list privy to these discussions?
> >>
> >>     (1)  What is the "context or hierarchy" involved that can't be
> >expressed
> >> by more typical nested containment?
> >
> >Good question!
> >
> >>
> >>     (2) Why can't the "context or hierarchy" be expressed in DTDs as
> >opposed
> >> to schemas?
> >
> >Good question
> >
> >>
> >>     (3) Why put the "context or hierarchy" in the element names?
> >
> >Yes, indeed! What ever for!
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance.
> >
> >--
> >    _/_/_/_/ _/    _/ _/    _/ Christopher Ferris - Enterprise Architect
> >   _/       _/    _/ _/_/  _/  Phone: 781-442-3063 or x23063
> >  _/_/_/_/ _/    _/ _/ _/ _/   Email: chris.ferris@East.Sun.COM
> >       _/ _/    _/ _/  _/_/    Sun Microsystems,  Mailstop: UBUR03-313
> >_/_/_/_/  _/_/_/  _/    _/     1 Network Drive Burlington, MA 01803-0903
> >
> >
>