[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] A Codelist Issue
A note to put this discussion in perspective. We did in fact discuss the use of substitution groups and abstract types for code lists in Washington, and we did come to an agreement among the people attending that we could live with making an exception to the NDRs for code lists to allow these constructs. But we did not have a quorum at that meeting, so that agreement cannot be considered a real consensus. Arriving at that consensus is what we're doing now, out on the TC list where everyone can see it. My own position at this point leans toward the views expressed by Tony and Anne: this approach does look promising, but if we can get UBL 1.0 done without modifying the rule about substitution groups to do it and make that decision when we understand its implications better, then that is what we should do. (As people who have worked on projects like this with me before will remember, I consider this always to be the right course of action in circumstances like these.) The two big questions remaining for me right now regarding substitution groups are these: - Is it really true that a future solution that uses substitution groups will be backward-incompatible with one that does not? - Are we introducing a feature that will make the construction of RNG and ASN.1 versions of the schemas impossible? We chose to make XSD the normative form for political reasons, but we are under an obligation to respect ISO and ITU standards as well as W3C recommendations, and this means not doing anything that would make those alternatives impossible to construct. Jon
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]