Re: FW: Latest Specification document

[john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com]

One problem with this is that the TP&R WG proposal does not have a single
root element. We use a MIME envelope containing a number of separate header
and payload documents.

John

MQSeries Technical Strategy & Planning,
IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park,
Winchester, SO21 2JN

Tel: +44 (0)1962 815188
Fax: +44 (0)1962 816898
Notes Id: John Ibbotson/UK/IBM
email: john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com


"Miller, Robert (GXS)" <Robert.Miller@gxs.ge.com> on 02/05/2000 19:09:01

Please respond to "Miller, Robert (GXS)" <Robert.Miller@gxs.ge.com>

To:   ebXML-transport@lists.oasis-open.org,
      ebXML-Architecture@lists.oasis-open.org
cc:    (bcc: John Ibbotson/UK/IBM)
Subject:  FW: Latest Specification document




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