RE: FW: Latest Specification document

["Miller, Robert (GXS)" <Robert.Miller@gxs.ge.com>]

That's not a problem, regardless of the solution. The header is a standalone
XML document, as are any other XML documents packaged in the MIME envelope.
Each such document stands on its own.

When/If W3C Schema becomes an approved recommendation, Murray's solution
should work just fine (though somewhere along the way it needs to pick up an
ebXML version number).  Even so, it impresses me as inherently more
complicated than using a simple PI, which I continue to support. 

I certainly do not understand all the fuss about some folks associated with
W3C not liking PI's, which are after all a well used (<?xml ...> XML 1.0
feature.  If W3C doesn't like PI's then let them remove the <?xml ...>.
Till then, I'll stnad my position. 

The XML 1.0 documentation clearly states "PI's are not part of the
document's character data, but must be passed through to the application."
That's about as straightforward as it can get to me.

Cheers,
        Bob



-----Original Message-----
From: john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com [mailto:john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 4:57 AM
To: Miller, Robert (GXS)
Cc: ebXML-transport@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: FW: Latest Specification document





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