ubl — archive
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
— [Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Month Index]
| [List Home]
[Fwd: [ebxml-dev] UBL implementation of the core components]
MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->ubl message
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [Fwd: [ebxml-dev] UBL implementation of the core components]
- From: "Monica J. Martin" <[email protected]>
- To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
- Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 11:13:30 -0700
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]
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
— [Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Month Index]
| [List Home]