Re: [ubl-ndrsc] Bill&Eve's proposal on local/global elements

[Mike Rawlins <mike@rawlinsecconsulting.com>]

Gregory cites very good reasons for why new RTs might be needed, and I don't
disagree with him.  However, I do still have reservations about the UBL TC
inventing and using RTs without them being approved by the responsible CEFACT
group, and just in the *hope* that they will be.  We're courting divergence and
a non-standard implementation if we go that route.   The foundation we're
working with (in the form of the CC spec and catalogue) is shakey enough already
without deliberately doing something that is an extension of that work.

Of course, we can always do what X12 is about to do, and say that we're not
going to set ourselves up as being dependent on the CC specs and catalog ;^)

Cheers,

Mike

"Gregory, Arofan" wrote <snipped>:

> Folks:
>
> Mike Rawlins makes the comment that we should not "invent" new RTs, since
> then we won't be ebXML-compliant. While I appreciate what he is saying, i
> would like to point out sonme cases where the RTs we have been given are
> insufficient:

--
Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
www.rawlinsecconsulting.com