Although I agree with you in principle, the problem is that if
we were to produce enormous schemas with tons and tons of
documentation embedded, carrying some ubl namespace, people who
wanted to use them with any kind of hope of acceptable
performance would have to strip the documentation away *and*
change the namespace.
It was because of this concern (that is, allowing people to say
they use UBL schemas) that we came up with the idea of two
sets of schemas carrying the same namespaces names (that is,
schemas A and A' being both in namespace UBL:A if the only
difference is documentation.) Perhaps we should play with the
idea of having A in namespace UBL:A and A' in namespace UBL:A' ?
(where UBL:A is just a shorthand reference to the UBL namespaces,
not to be taken as implying that it is an UBL namespace name...)
Chin Chee-Kai wrote:
> Again, this two schemas per model rule is also something
> I feel is rather stringent to be stated as a rule, or that
> it is redundant.
>
> Developers and users will find their own most suitable form
> of optimizing for processing. It shouldn't be a specified
> form of rule for such purposes.
>
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Chin Chee-Kai
> SoftML
> Tel: +65-6820-2979
> Fax: +65-6743-7875
> Email: cheekai@SoftML.Net
> http://SoftML.Net/
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Lisa-Aeon wrote:
>
>
>>>I am forwarding this from the FPSC and LCSC since this has to do with the
>>>embedded documentation in the schema. The only rule we have in the
>>>checklist is R96, which states:
>>>
>>>"Two schemas shall be developed for each standard. One schema shall be a
>>>run-time schema devoid of documentation. One schema shall be a fully
>>>annotated schema that employs XHTML for the annotations."
>>>
>>>There is not description of how it is to be used and can be intrepreted in
>>>many different ways. Shall we join this discussion?
>>>
>>>I know that we voted on using xsd:documentation and not xsd:appinfo, for
>>>embedded documentation, I think there should be a rule saying this.
>>>
>>>Lisa
>>>
>>>
>>>