[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [Fwd: [ebxml-dev] UBL implementation of the core components]
See question to UBL below. >Hunsicker: I have just looked at the UBL XML implementation of the core component >types. Could anyone explain to me why they do not fully respect the CCT as >defined in the CCTS. By this I mean they have not made use of the "Content" >attribute. Would it not have been so much simplier to have the content >attribute and thus be 100% complient with the CCTS and even be able to >economise on the end tag which is not such a neglible economy. Could anyone >give the justifications for this? > >I'd also be interested in knowing why the CCTS naming convention is not >respected for the documents (e.g. Order. Buyer. Identifier) and what means, >if any, were used to develop a naming convention that provides shortened >names? > >Thanks for your feedback > >Regards > >Michel Hunsicker >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]