ubl — archive
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
— [Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Month Index]
| [List Home]
Re: [ubl] A Codelist Issue
MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->ubl message
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] A Codelist Issue
- From: "Stephen Green" <[email protected]>
- To: <[email protected]>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:30:45 -0000
Further on substiutionGroups: Is the reason for using a substitutionGroup and an abstract element so that one can change the enumerations without needing to change the namespace? I was perhaps the main proponent for allowing 'plug-and-play' so I feel a little responsible here; since last week and Jon's explanation of the desire *not* to allow the updating of a codelist Schema *without* corresponding changes in namespaces in the whole of the UBL set of Schemas, I now feel convinced by the argument. This is unfortunate in one sense because I now find myself seeming hypocritical in arguing against the very thing I so persistently asked for. Nevertheless I'd be happier if we all agreed whether we go for allowing changes without namespace changes or not doing so. This decision, I think, would have major implications (correct me XSD experts if I'm wrong) on whether we use substitutionGroups as proposed by the example and instructions from the CLSC. (The finer details of what is involved with either abstract elements or abstract types I admit I'm new to so I'd rely on what others have said but there does seem to be a lot of advice around about this which seems to support my concerns at least.) Steve
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
— [Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Month Index]
| [List Home]