Sorry, Tony, I am VERY STRONGLY against having more than
ONE normative schema.
Taking a step further based on proposed "normative optimized
schema without documentation", why can't people ask for
"normative optimized schema without documentation AND
without whitespaces" (ie, one long line of "optimized"
non-fat milk?), and why can't people ask for "normative
optimized schema in compressed WBXML binary format",
and all sorts of other "normative" versions?
Where does that stop??
So, no, please don't open the pandora box.
Best Regards,
Chin Chee-Kai
SoftML
Tel: +65-6820-2979
Fax: +65-6743-7875
Email: cheekai@SoftML.Net
http://SoftML.Net/
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Anthony B. Coates wrote:
>>** Reply to message from Dan Vint <dvint@acord.org> on Tue, 15 Jul 2003
>>09:33:16 -0700
>>
>>I am *completely* opposed to the suggestion that users can filter annotations
>>out of their Schemas if required. My experience is that only the < 1% of
>>people who take part in XML committees have the confidence and experience for
>>that. Worse, it just introduces an unnecessary, globally-distributed quality
>>control issue. If it is so easy to filter out the documentation, then let us
>>do it just once ourselves for everyone on the planet, and issue two equivalent
>>normative Schemas, full-fat and low-fat. I'm happy to contribute an XSLT
>>script or Java class to do the job, if it is too hard to do from the Schema
>>generation tools.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Tony.
>>
>>> At 10:27 AM 7/15/2003 -0500, Burcham, Bill wrote:
>>> >I think we should remove this rule. A user can filter out annotations if
>>> >they are unwanted.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ok then the implication of this is that the only schema that UBL sends is
>>> one with full documentation/annotation. I suppose I can live with that, but
>>> again I would state this as a rule that the schemas are fully documented.
>>>
>>> ..dan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >