[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ubl-dev] UBL- just how reliable are XSD based syntax checks?
Ken, I was having a hard time figuring out what Tim had noted vis your threads - thanks for clearing that. From my stance - the issue over namespaces is nothing to do with tools - and alot to do with people and sophistication with XML. Simple XML without namespaces - like it or not - is a lowest common denominator, for both tools and people. I know that will be processed by a simple lightweight XML processor, or import / export feature. Just for the record - CAM is extremely smart in its ability to handle namespaces - it will handle namespaced content that most other tools will not. This has been honed over a year and more of hard knocks with sample transactions, good, bad and really ugly. Unfortunately namespaces can be used in ways the W3C does not perscribe. UBL fortunately is not in that bucket - but plenty of other XML is - with conflicting default namespaces, inline namespaces and duplicate and invalid namespace declarations. That's just a fact of life I guess - if people can mess it up - they will! CAM is able to read in bad namespaced content and fix it and create better namespace declarations for you so it processes with XPath expressions that work correctly. Anyway - seems you are insisting that pukka UBL needs its namespaces. The fact that CAM can handle that content with or without those namespaces - interchangably - clearly something that does not interest you - but may be of convenience to implementers. Contrary wise - seems that you are OK with using downstream feeds that collect data that ultimately ends up being packaged in real UBL - as a convenience - just so long as those downstream feeds are not labelled as "UBL". Clearly this happens all the time with existing EDI interfaces for example, or ones in cXML, BODS, or other legacy formats - and after post-processing - should be acceptable to have their output cleansed into UBL. Cheers, DW "The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.) -------- Original Message --------
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]