Robert,
This approach would work just fine. But, there is some
controversy over the use of PIs as a part of an XML standard.
There was a big "discussion" on this in the W3C over the
XML Namespaces and XML Style Sheet Linking Specifications.
The XML WG had to produce yet another Namespace Specification
to remove the PI from the spec. The Namespace Recommendation
has no PIs, because of this issue. The XML Syntax WG had a
similar problem. But, the xml-stylesheet PI was already in
public use, so that the Spec was pushed through to a Recommendation.
Though this paragraph was added to the REC:
The use of XML processing instructions in this specification
should not be taken as a precedent. The W3C does not anticipate
recommending the use of processing instructions in any future
specification. The Rationale explains why they were used in
this specification.
Here is the Rational provided:
There was an urgent requirement for a specification for style
sheet linking that could be completed in time for the next
release from major browser vendors. Only by choosing a simple
mechanism closely based on a proven existing mechanism could the
specification be completed in time to meet this requirement.
Use of a processing instruction avoids polluting the main document
structure with application specific processing information.
The mechanism chosen for this version of the specification is not a
constraint on the additional mechanisms planned for future versions.
There is no expectation that these will use processing instructions;
indeed they may not include the linking information in the source
document.
So, I think it should be determined whether PIs are being used this way or
not in other publicly used XML Specifications.
Joel Nava
On Behalf Of Miller, Robert (GXS)
>
> Hi All,
>
> The Architecture Document (Section 3.5.5 a)(TechArch group) currently
> proposes that an ebXML document be framed within an 'ebXML' element.
> TR&P is referenced in an Editor's note to this rule. See below:
>
> a) The message will use a root tag of <ebXML> to identify it as an
> ebXML compliant transaction.
>
> [EDITORS NOTE: THE TRP GROUP MUST EITHER ADOPT THIS OR SPECIFY AN
> ALTERNATIVE IDENTIFICATION ELEMENT OR METHOD]
>
> I do not support this means of identification, and propose instead that an
> XML conformant document include a 'Processing Instruction' asserting ebXML
> compliance. I suggest:
>
> <?ebXML version='1.0' reference='someURI'>
>
> where 'version' provides the ebXML version to which compliance is claimed,
> and
> 'reference' provides a URI for use in accessing a repository of
> metadata relating to this message.
>
> I believe this approach is less intrusive upon XML syntax. It eliminates
> the need, if a DTD (or other schema declaration)is used, to
> define an ebXML
> element and its allowed content.
>
> Cheers,
> Bob
