RE: [Fwd: Re[2]: Concern with basic ebXML TRP Syntax/Semantics]

[David Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com>]

Prasad

See comments below marked with a ##

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:pyendluri@vitria.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 3:59 PM
Cc: ebXML Transport (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re[2]: Concern with basic ebXML TRP Syntax/Semantics]


XSD is still in draft state (last draft dated April 7,2000). Not sure if
ebXML
can base specifications on drafts. Can XDR be considered open for use by
ebXML
?
##Using XSD, vs DTD vs XDR (or even C1' SOX) should not be an issue as in
the *instance* they are all the same apart from the doctype. This means that
we can process a document that was generated using a schema with a DTD
provided we can map from one definition to another.##

Given that, we still don't have an XML solution. Even with the proposed
namespace route, the actual instances of the documents still would contain
the
header(s) and payload in one XML document. Which does not lend itself to,

1. Routing by third parties (Hubs)  that need not and should not  look into
business content.
##If you place the critical information, needed by routing near the start of
the message, then you can parse it to find the critical information you need
with a simple SAX parser or even treat the document as straigt text. This
means that errors, apart from the most fundamental, would not cause
problems.##
2. Efficient routing (internal to an organization or otherwise) based on
just
the fixed format header only.
3. Error reporting back even if the business content can not be handled by
receiving side.
##These can also be handled by initially doing a very simple (non-XML) parse
of the document.##

Additionally for attaching binary content we still need a MIME like
solution.
##I also agree with this.##
Above IMHO are important factors to consider into the mix  for the packaging
scheme.

Prasad

Ravi Manikundalam wrote:

> Agreed - the namespace recommendation only  enables the construction of
> "modular XDR or XSD" schemas and not modular DTD's.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Blount [mailto:blount@metratech.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 7:24 AM
> To: Ravi Manikundalam
> Cc: ebXML Transport (E-mail); 'Prasad Yendluri'; James McCarthy
> Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re[2]: Concern with basic ebXML TRP Syntax/Semantics]
>
> Could you show us exactly how this is done?  I was under the (perhaps
> mistaken) impression that one cannot create valid (verifiable by DTD) XML
> documents that refrence more than one DTD.  My understanding is that the
> namespaces reccommendation does not allow for "modular DTDs."
>
> Best regards,
> Alan Blount
>
> http://www.jclark.com/xml/xmlns.htm
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ravi Manikundalam [mailto:ravima@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2000 12:32 AM
> To: 'Prasad Yendluri'
> Cc: James McCarthy; ebXML Transport (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re[2]: Concern with basic ebXML TRP Syntax/Semantics]
>
> By using name spaces you can create a single XML Document instance whose
> content is defined by 1 or more element type or schema definitions from
one
> or more name spaces, which means even though you may have multiple schema
> files for the various XML parts in the "message" you can have a single XML
> Document Instance that packages them all into a single DOM.