RE: Latest Specification document

["Arun Candadai" <arun@onebox.com>]

According to what I have seen in cXML, xCBL, BizTalk and other specifications,
none of the specs are currently employing specific processing instructions.
Each of the specs use the root element of the XML document as their message
/ business document.

- Arun
arun@onebox.com - email

---- "Joel A. Nava" <jnava@vertical.net> wrote:
> Robert,
> 
> This approach would work just fine. But, there is some
> controversy over the use of PIs as a part of an XML standard.
> 
> There was a big "discussion" on this in the W3C over the
> XML Namespaces and XML Style Sheet Linking Specifications.
> The XML WG had to produce yet another Namespace Specification
> to remove the PI from the spec. The Namespace Recommendation
> has no PIs, because of this issue. The XML Syntax WG had a
> similar problem. But, the xml-stylesheet PI was already in
> public use, so that the Spec was pushed through to a Recommendation.
> Though this paragraph was added to the REC:
> 
> 	The use of XML processing instructions in this specification
> 	should not be taken as a precedent. The W3C does not anticipate
> 	recommending the use of processing instructions in any future
> 	specification. The Rationale explains why they were used in
> 	this specification.
> 
> Here is the Rational provided:
> 
> 	There was an urgent requirement for a specification for style
> 	sheet linking that could be completed in time for the next
> 	release from major browser vendors. Only by choosing a simple
> 	mechanism closely based on a proven existing mechanism could
> the
> 	specification be completed in time to meet this requirement.
> 
> 	Use of a processing instruction avoids polluting the main document
> 	structure with application specific processing information.
> 
> 	The mechanism chosen for this version of the specification
> is not a
> 	constraint on the additional mechanisms planned for future
> versions.
> 	There is no expectation that these will use processing instructions;
> 	indeed they may not include the linking information in the
> source
> 	document.
> 
> So, I think it should be determined whether PIs are being used this
> way or
> not in other publicly used XML Specifications.
> 
> 
> Joel Nava
> 
> 
> 
> On Behalf Of Miller, Robert (GXS)
> >
> > Hi All,
> >
> > The Architecture Document (Section 3.5.5 a)(TechArch group) currently
> > proposes that an ebXML document be framed within an 'ebXML' element.
> > TR&P is referenced in an Editor's note to this rule. See below:
> >
> >   a)      The message will use a root tag of <ebXML> to identify
> it as an
> > ebXML compliant transaction.
> >
> >   [EDITORS NOTE:  THE TRP GROUP MUST EITHER ADOPT THIS OR SPECIFY
> AN
> > ALTERNATIVE IDENTIFICATION ELEMENT OR METHOD]
> >
> > I do not support this means of identification, and propose instead
> that an
> > XML conformant document include a 'Processing Instruction' asserting
> ebXML
> > compliance.  I suggest:
> >
> > 	<?ebXML version='1.0' reference='someURI'>
> >
> > where 'version' provides the ebXML version to which compliance is
> claimed,
> > and
> >       'reference' provides a URI for use in accessing a repository
> of
> > metadata relating to this message.
> >
> > I believe this approach is less intrusive upon XML syntax.  It eliminates
> > the need, if a DTD (or other schema declaration)is used, to
> > define an ebXML
> > element and its allowed content.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >         Bob
> 
> 

__________________________________________________
FREE voicemail, email, and fax...all in one place.
Sign Up Now! http://www.onebox.com