Re: proposal: collapse To and From elements

[christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>]

William,

I'm not sure what you mean by "pretty". No one ever said
angle brackets were "pretty";-)

You do raise an interesting point. However, isn't
this sort of "internal" routing supposed to be
addressed with DUNS+4 (assuming that DUNS is used as
a Party identifier)?

Cheers,

Chris

"William J. Kammerer" wrote:
> 
> What if some day you wanted to add internal routing specifications to
> either the <From> or <To> specifications, à la RosettaNet's (V2)
> optional <locationID> within <PartnerIdentification>?
> 
>  <To>
>       <Party context="uri">urn:duns:123456789</Party>
>        <InternalRouting>Columbus office</InternalRouting>
>  </To>
> 
> I suppose <InternalRouting> could be made another attribute of the newly
> "collapsed" <To> and <From> elements, but...
> 
> Also, I've got a gut feel against having different leaf-node elements
> which are a whole lot like other elements (even if they're easy enough
> to define in a schema).  If and when we ever got Core Component Design
> Rules, would the type of collapsing described by Christopher Ferris be
> considered pretty?
> 
> William J. Kammerer
> FORESIGHT Corp.
> 4950 Blazer Memorial Pkwy.
> Dublin, OH USA 43017-3305
> +1 614 791-1600
> 
> Visit FORESIGHT Corp. at http://www.foresightcorp.com/
> "Commerce for a New World"
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:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:chris.ferris@east.sun.com
title:Sr. Staff Engineer
fn:Christopher Ferris
end:vcard