[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: missing(?) header element
All, This has been discussed previously, but now is the time to revisit the issue of missing header elements starting with the following proposal. This issue should be added to the comments list for v0.8. I would propose that we add a new element to be used to indicate whether the message is a test or live/production message. Both RosettaNet and OTA have something similar in purpose, although each calls it something different. I imagine that other vocabularies have something similar as well. The purpose of this element (or attribute as the case may be) is to enable parties to exchange messages prior to actually engaging in e-business, to ensure that their systems are prepared to correctly handle the messages they send eachother. I would propose that we add the following element as a sub-element of Header: <!ELEMENT Usage EMPTY> <!ATTLIST Usage Mode (test | production ) #REQUIRED > e.g. <Usage Mode="test"/> I would propose that this Usage element be OPTIONAL in cardinality within in instance document. It would be REQUIRED for a receiving MSH treat the message as <Usage Mode="production"/> in the absence of a Usage element within an instance document. An alternate approach would be to add an OPTIONAL attribute to the ebXMLHeader element: <!ATTLIST ebXMLHeader Mode (test | production) #IMPLIED> or, specifying a default value: <!ATTLIST ebXMLHeader Mode (test | production) "production"> e.g. <ebXMLHeader xmlns="..." MessageType="Normal" Version="1.0" Mode="test"> ... </ebXMLHeader> As with the case of the Usage element above, if the attribute is absent in an instance of an ebXMLHeader instance document, a receiving MSH SHALL treat the message as if it had an attribute of Mode="production". I could also live with: <!ELEMENT Usage EMPTY> <!ATTLIST Usage Mode (test | live) #REQUIRED > or, specifying a default value... <!ATTLIST ebXMLHeader Mode (test | live) "live"> It would be likely that we would need to specify explicitly that a message sent in response to a message sent with Mode="test" MUST itself have a Mode="test" and vice versa. Comments? Cheers, Chris
begin:vcard n:Ferris;Christopher tel;cell:508-667-0402 tel;work:781-442-3063 x-mozilla-html:FALSE org:Sun Microsystems, Inc;XTC Advanced Development adr:;;One Network Drive;Burlington;Ma;01803-0903;USA version:2.1 email;internet:chris.ferris@east.sun.com title:Senior Staff Engineer fn:Christopher Ferris end:vcard
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC