[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Draft 9.1 Schema Review - CCT and UDT schemas
Greetings, 1) We are missing a required 'Version' element in the documentation of every datatype. (We seem to be missing it in all the other schemas as well, for datatypes *and* BIEs.) I would assume the value would be '1.0' (or some such thing) for everything in the initial release. ============================================= 2) In the UDT schema, the 'DateTimeType' definition is what I would expect; there is a restriction on cct:DateTimeType that removes the infamous 'format' attribute. However, the datatypes with a base of 'cct:IndicatorType' or 'cct:NumericType' define a restriction, but then include the 'format' attribute, which in effect makes it no different than the CCT datatypes. Is this what was intended? ============================================= 3) Minor point: In the CCT schema, the attribute definitions all declare 'use="optional"' even though it is the default value and does not need to be declared. In the UDT schema, 'use="optional"' is *not* declared (except in the restriction of 'cct:IndicatorType'). Do we want/need to be consistent here? Thanks, Mike Grimley
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]