RE: [ubl-dev] Customizing where 'Simpler-Than-UBL' (STU) is needed

["David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

Ken and Steve, 

This is indeed an interesting moment in time and space. 

Let me try and summarize and unravel the XML knot here. 

1) UBL is defined as a set of XSD schemas - to which things have to be
conformant. 

2) Payloads are in XML format 

3) Steve has a subset that uses the same UBL entities and constructs and
approach as the regular schemas  
    (the Lego bricks if we will) 

Now - Conformant is driven by 1) - however something may be Compatible
with 1) - e.g. using 3) if there is a simple transformation that can be
applied that renders 2) as something that will pass 1). 

I believe that is what we are seeing here - not strict conformance - but
compatible with - hence its UBL-ish -while not being exactly UBL as per
the v2.0 XSD. 

However - I think Steve's point is that its still in the spirit of and
compatible with UBL since its using all the same "Lego" - but just is
simpler for people to do 2) - and handle the XML payloads.  From the
CCTS stance of course - Steve is correct - the XML is just a rendering
- so being compatible with the CCTS model of UBL can take many forms -
even EDI instances!?!? 

DW

"The way to be is to do" - Confucius (551-472 B.C.)