ubl — archive

Re: AW: [ubl] Change requests for the next 1.0 schema generation

From: Anne Hendry
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:32:00 -0000

 MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->

















ubl message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [List Home]








Subject: Re: AW: [ubl] Change requests for the next 1.0 schema generation




From: Anne Hendry <[email protected]>
To: Michael Dill <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 07:52:16 -0800






No, everyone is in agreement here: you, NDR, Mike Grimley, joint call 
members, Tim, etc. that we add back in 'format' to these types (that we 
do not mess with the cct types - we only change things in the udt and 
sdt/cl modules).  Please look at the summary of the meeting notes that 
Tim sent out, which I've attached here again, for a complete list of 
decisions, and note that the removal of the restriction is noted in 
Issue 12.  I'll go through the list and see if there's anything else 
missing from Stephen's previous email, but you and David should also 
review this summary yourselves to make sure you've included all the 
changes that say something like "David will fix", or something similar.

Thanks,
Anne

Michael Dill wrote:

> Ooooh, I seem to remember that the NDR discussion in Washington was 
> just the other way round and that the group disagreed with my 'simple' 
> CCTS approach.
> Now, I'm confused.
> Stephen: help
> Michael
>  
>
>     -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
>     Von: Grimley Michael J NPRI [mailto:[email protected]]
>     Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. M�rz 2004 15:02
>     An: [email protected]
>     Betreff: RE: [ubl] Change requests for the next 1.0 schema generation
>
>     Greetings,
>      
>     As mentioned in a previous email, and not included below, the
>     latest CCT schema still has 'DateTime', 'Indicator' and 'Numeric'
>     types defined as simple types (with a *Restriction* on the built
>     in type).
>
>     I believe we had agreed in Washington that they would be redefined
>     to conform to the CCTS. That is, the required supplementary
>     component 'Format' would be added to the definition of each.
>
>     I wasn't able to make yesterday's meeting (until the end, anyway)
>     and Jon has made it very clear that that is where the decisions
>     are made; however, this involves CCTS conformance and, if I am not
>     mistaken, the decision was made in joint session with Tim and
>     Steve on the phone, so there was good representation of all
>     concerned SCs.
>
>     Thank You,
>
>     Mike Grimley
>
>