Profile

Good morning, FYI: Last Friday, the New Zealand Education Sector ICT Steering Committee has accepted the recommendation that the education sector adaptation of the OASIS UBL NDR 2.0 (known as ESL NDR 2.0) be used for XML naming and design of XML schemas. Naturally, we tried to keep adaptations ...

Thank you Ken, So that means that the ccts: prefixed tags in UBL schemas are not validated against any schema. Instead, the ccts prefix is associated with a namespace, but no schema is imported, allowing for somewhat differing ccts: tags in uDT and qDT for example without throwing schema validation ...

Can someone kindly tell me what the status/ plan for the above Schema is? I notice that the schema is empty at present, and that ccts: prefixed tags differ somewhat between UN/CEFACT and UBL owned schemas. Many thanks Juerg

Hi Michael, I suspected that might be the 'best' way. I conclude that UN/CEFACT does permit elements devoid of content, is that so? Or is it perhaps an oversight of theirs, meaning it could be addressed in a future version of UDT? Cheers Juerg

The UBL 2 Specification disallows empty elements (the old IND5 and IND6 rule, now moved to UBL Spec). Unlike the nillable attribute, this rule is not enforced by the XML schemas, at least not for string based data types. Shouldn't it be enforced? I can see various options: - a minLength facet ...