Thanks David for your comments. We will undoubtedly learn much
through this trial by fire - or earthquake as the case may be. We
will get through this, get the people on the ground the schema they need
(untold thanks to Lee Tincher and Evolution Technologies) what they need
and make recommendations on process, artifacts, etc. as needed.
Regards, Elysa
At 08:28 AM 3/1/2010, David RR Webber \(XML\) wrote:
Elysa,
This illustrates why it is a very bad idea to put example XML in the
specification. Sigh.
OASIS needs to stop doing this - and make examples external to the
document - in the same way as XSD artifacts are.
Please tell them to go with what the xsd Schema is telling them the XML
should be - and NOT the specification examples.
On their second point - Bed capacities - I too had puzzled over a good
way to use this. I agree with their call to use only BedType and
ignore SubCategoryBedType.
It may help them to quickly load the EDXL schema into the CAM toolkit
(sourceforge.net/projects/camprocessor) and then generate XML examples
and documentation - so they can construct the exchange XML that they
need.
=====================================================
"It only allows zero or more <BedType> elements, followed by
zero or more <SubCategoryBedType> elements, followed by zero or
more <Capacity> elements.
I can't figure out how to properly represent or interpret bed capacities
in this structure. Can you advise on the correct method? If
it is true that this just doesn't work as intended, should we decide to
use only <BedType> and avoid the use of <SubCategoryBedType>
in the EDXL-HAVE Haiti Profile?"
Thanks, DW