[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: SV: SV: [ubl] Discussion XSD implementation of extensions
>In retrospect I'm really liking this suggestion, >Bryan, of a container element. And that's >improving the aesthetics for me too: consider >that with the extension element each and every >UBL-defined object has a UBL-defined >sibling. I'm in agreement with this. >So, I now recommend we make the ExtensionContent >element last child of the UBLExtension element >mandatory and allow it to be empty. Don't know if it should be allowed to be empty, despite the benefits to streaming processing. I don't want things to be done in a particular way to benefit one processing model. What do you think the chances are of people outputting extension elements that are empty? Without extension content? Also I would think that would make it difficult or less optimizable for some implementors that might want different handling of extensions or not stream-based handling of the format. Cheers, Bryan Rasmussen
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]