Re: FW: Latest Specification document

[Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>]

Bob,

PIs may be well used, but they are a PAIN
to use IMO. You need to separately parse the
text contained within a PI to make it meaningful
for starters. (at least, that has been my
experience, I could be pounding my head against 
the wall for naught;-)

Clearly, we need not wait for XML Schema to
use attributes such as type, xmlns and version.
How this is inherently more complicated than
PIs is beyond me.

Cheers,

Chris

"Miller, Robert (GXS)" wrote:
> 
> 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