+1
Martin W Sachs wrote:
> I agree with Arvola. Once the schema is normative, and not just an example,
> we have to assume that there will be people who implement the schema and
> give only cursory attention to the text.
>
> Regards,
> Marty
>
> *************************************************************************************
>
> Martin W. Sachs
> IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
> P. O. B. 704
> Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
> 914-784-7287; IBM tie line 863-7287
> Notes address: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
> Internet address: mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
> *************************************************************************************
>
>
>
> David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com> on 11/05/2001 09:58:35 PM
>
> To: Arvola Chan <arvola@tibco.com>, Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
> cc: ebXML Msg <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] ebXML Message Service Specification
>
>
>
> Arvola,
>
> I guess you refer to:
>
> I suggest that this sentence be struck out. The schema must be in sync
> with
> the specification because implementers will directly use the schema in
> their
> implementations.
>
> in reference to the sentence:
>
> Note: if inconsistencies exist between the specification and this schema,
> the specification supersedes this example schema.
>
> I disagree. The spec must take precedence over the schema in the appendix.
> If
> there is a discrepancy, we must change the schema. After we publish v1.1
> with
> the schema in the appendix, we can no longer make changes to the v1.1 spec
> but
> we can still make changes to the schema.
>
> I will make this change if the group decides you are right and I am wrong.
> Anyone?
>
> Regards,
>
> David.
>
>