[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] Re: [ubl-comment] Public Comment
Unless the intention of the suggestion is to have a container for what we have for document types, e.g.: <orders> <order> ... </order> <order> ... </order> </orders> But would a raw container with no further metadata or even real data be of much use? I'm not sure. On 04/15/2004 08:56 PM, Tim McGrath wrote: > you are certainly correct in recognizing the xCBL heritage - it was our > starting point. > > we also agree with your comments on sets of documents being exchanged. > however, this is mechanism best left to the transport, routing and > packaging layer of the exchange protocol (eg. ebXML MS). as all such > system handle this differently, it is just adding to the confusion to > suggest it be defined (once again) in the content vocabulary. > > comment-form@oasis-open.org wrote: > >> Comment from: elau@walmart.com >> >> Hi took a look at the UBL v1 beta and notice that it is very similar >> to xCBL. I did work on and help define xCBL 3.0. >> >> A suggestion to you is for all the business documents you need to >> provide a way to send a LIST of the same type of document. One of the >> limitation of xCBL is that transact one document at a time. We the >> business need to send a batch of documents of the same type. >> >> Regards. >> >> To unsubscribe from this list, send a post to >> ubl-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org, or visit >> http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/. >> >> >> > -- Eduardo Gutentag | e-mail: eduardo.gutentag@Sun.COM Web Technologies and Standards | Phone: +1 510 550 4616 x31442 Sun Microsystems Inc. | W3C AC Rep / OASIS BoD
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]