RE: [ubl] Re: [ubl-clsc] Groups - wd-ublclsc-codelist-20040414.doc uploaded

[<MCRAWFORD@lmi.org>]

Tony wrote - 
 
> I agree entirely with Stephen (and my apologies that I missed 
> this when 
> reviewing the document myself).  A version 1.0 document 
> should not try to 
> predict what might happen in version 1.1.  Whatever happens 
> will happen, 
> and that will then be documented in the version 1.1 documents.

Concur.  Given the strong aversion to the use of substitution groups by other standards bodies and the unanimous rejection of it in the NDR when it was originally discussed, it would be inappropriate at this time to say that UBL will make substitution groups the bedrock of 1.1.

Mark