• From: "David E. Cleary" <davec@p...>
• To: XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 15:38:47 -0500

> <foo>
>     <value>20010312T143213</value>
> </foo>
>
> For the sender, the value element contains a batch ID
> that uniquely identifies a batch of transactions.
> The sender happens to use a timestamp as the batch ID,
> even though the value element may contain any
> string that uniquely identifies the batch.
>
> For the receiver, the value element contains the
> date and time when the message was created. The
> receiver is not interested in batch IDs, but is
> interested in the creation date and time.

So because I chose to use UUIDs to identify a batch of transactions, your
receiver fails even though semantically I am correct. Doesn't sound like a
smart way to create interoperable systems. Neither ebXML or BizTalk mingle
timestamps and ids in such a fashion, and I don't see why anyone would want
to.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Cleary
Progress Software

Sign up now for PROGRESS Worldwide Exchange June 3-7, 2001, Washington
DC.
http://www.progress.com/exchange

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema
    • From: "Robert C. Lyons" <boblyons@u...>

• References:
  • RE: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema
    • From: "Robert C. Lyons" <boblyons@u...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Masters (was RE: Personal reply)
• Next by Date: RE: typing (was RE: Personal reply)
• Previous by thread: RE: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema
• Next by thread: RE: Personal reply to Edd Dumbill's XML Hack Article wrt W3C XML Schema
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread