At 2003-03-03 01:10 +0100, Eric Smith wrote:
I followed the above link and looked at the Invoice example.
Your OfficeInvoiceInstance1 name space viz.
Actually "the" instance, not "my" instance. The UBL committee's LCSC
subcommittee has been working hard to create the schemas and the instances
of those schemas for examples and these outputs are the results of the
efforts of many on the committee. My small contribution was only the
example XSLT and XSL-FO and I'm just using the sample instances they created.
The schema instance that we wish to provide a rendering library for is
very different
(see
http://www.uc-council.org/documents/pdf/EAN.UCC_Business_Message_Standards_Version_1.0.pdf)
- for example it has the following elements:
[see below]
So this is not UBL -
Yes, I see that ... thank you for the UC Council link ... I was unaware of
the work.
Any ideas for how we could leverage your fine work for
xmlns="http://www.uc-council.org/smp/schemas/...";
Is there a possibility to make a single xslt project in respect of both
schemas?
Well, again getting away from actual rendering technologies such as XSLT
... looking at the UC Council site I do not see any formatting
specifications. Before you jump into writing XSLT for the UCC schemas, are
you not going to have to go through the same major step that I have
proposed for UBL: the creation of technology-agnostic formatting
specifications? Only then can you actually go and write some stylesheets
knowing what it is you want them to produce.
This was the important lesson I learned after I volunteered for the UBL
stylesheets. Sure I'll still do some XSLT but it quickly became obvious
that the missing link was the lack of formatting specifications, not the
lack of stylesheets. Stylesheets are "just a simple matter of some software".
And if the UCC does develop formatting specifications then people with
other rendering technologies will be able to contribute to your work.
That is what I hope for UBL: technology-agnostic formatting specifications
will spawn multiple implementations in many rendering technologies so that
people choosing to use UBL will have a choice about which rendering
technology fits in their specific situation.
If they want XSLT, then they could come to Crane (or some other creator of
another library) for stylesheets and/or training. If they want to use
something else, then another vendor can offer that technology to them.
When we finish the UBL formatting specifications I can compare them to any
UCC specs that can be found or made to know better if my work on UBL can be
leveraged to the UCC. I should think it wouldn't be a lot of work!
BTW, does the UCC have any story line on the role of ebXML with their
product identification and electronic communication? I'm just curious and
that can be answered off-line.
I hope this helps!
....................... Ken
--
Upcoming hands-on in-depth XSLT/XPath and/or XSL-FO
North America: June 16-20, 2003
G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/s/
Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0 +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995)
ISBN 0-13-065196-6 Definitive XSLT and XPath
ISBN 0-13-140374-5 Definitive XSL-FO
ISBN 1-894049-08-X Practical Transformation Using XSLT and XPath
ISBN 1-894049-10-1 Practical Formatting Using XSL-FO
Male Breast Cancer Awareness http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/s/bc
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list