OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-transport message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: Re: FW: Latest Specification document


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.



"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.
> 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

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC