[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [Fwd: RE: on the issue of PartyId]
All, I agree we have decended into physical representation wars, as there are many ways to indicate the same semantics in XML, and more issues have emerged but at the incorrect level (physical) IMHO. Backing up and keeping at a logical discussion, I think we need agreement that ebXML willl specifying the Partyid value as a URI default, and the ability for the upper level software to specify both the Partyid value and it's context/domain/type value alternately from the default. I am sensing from the conversation that we have established agreement at this level, which is my main concern. Is this true? Scott Hinkelman Senior Software Engineer, IBM Austin Emerging Technologies, SWG 512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519) email@example.com, Fax: 512-838-1074 "Burdett, David" <firstname.lastname@example.org> on 09/22/2000 04:44:59 PM To: "'David RR Webber'" <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>, Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS cc: ebxml transport <email@example.com>, "'Henry Lowe'" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: RE: [Fwd: RE: on the issue of PartyId] >>> ebXMLpartyID ( URIpartyID | partyIDref | partyIDcode ) <<< ... I think we're descending into an XML style war here ... this and my suggestion could both work (as no doubt could others) as they are semantically the same ... and I'm not sure that a vote by the TRP group would solve the problem as it could still result in inconsistent approaches within the same spec ... perhaps the TRP editor should ensure consistency (grin) ... HELP !! David -----Original Message----- From: David RR Webber [mailto:Gnosis_@compuserve.com] Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 2:04 PM To: Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM Cc: Burdett, David; ebxml transport; 'Henry Lowe' Subject: RE: [Fwd: RE: on the issue of PartyId] Message text written by Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM >since the FIXED by definition indicates the behaviour of the "XML Processor" (meaning standard validating parsing routines and an additional application validation logic) is to act like it was present with the default value if not there. Otherwise we may have to say more. I'm getting way too Picky on this. < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Picky or not the parser sure will be picky if it is FIXED attribute - it will not allow anything else! The DTD has to be a little more flexible to get the behaviour set. I'll fiddle with it over the weekend some. DTD's really are a messedupmucxed up beast - hard to believe that the W3C let them out the door in the state they did <g>. Thinking a compound block with two optional elements, with different attributes is the way to go - that way the varient you pick determines the style you are using - ebXMLpartyID ( URIpartyID | partyIDref | partyIDcode ) sort of thing..... DW.
Powered by eList eXpress LLC