Re: [ubl-comment] UBL comments on ebXML Core Components TechnicalSpecification v1.8

[Tim McGrath <tmcgrath@portcomm.com.au>]

Todd,

I must concur with Mike on this.  In fact, I think it is confusing and 
counter-productive for you to redistribute UBL comments to the eBTWG 
lists for discussion.  This is why we have a formal comments submission 
process.  Groups like UBL need to get their thoughts together and 
present them formally to groups like eBTWG.

UBL welcomes your comments and contribution to our discussion - but 
please dont waste the bandwidth of eBTWG list members.  It only serves 
to add to the static interference.


Michael C. Rawlins wrote:

>May I note that there is a difference between a proposed draft and 
>your characterization that the "UBL TC has recommended"?  This topic 
>is still under discussion.
>
>At Monday, 29 April 2002, Todd Boyle <tboyle@rosehill.net> wrote:
>
>>UBL TC has recommended that the Core Component Type and
>>Representation Term (CCT and RT) "Identifier" be eliminated from
>>the CCTS.
>>

<remainder of message removed>>

>
>.
>

-- 
regards
tim mcgrath
fremantle  western australia 6160
phone: +618 93352228  fax: +618 93352142