Re: [ubl-clsc] [Fwd: Re: UBL amount type code list solution]

[Anne Hendry <anne.hendry@sun.com>]

My understanding is that this is just an example of the decision we made 
this morning, for clarification, particularly for Marty and others in 
clsc that were not at the meeting (actually, I need it too, even though 
I was at the meeting! :)).  But that said, I suppose there's not harm in 
also posting to ubl, it's just that sending it to clsc I think gets the 
attention of those in clsc, to whom it is actually directed and might 
not otherwise monitor what's going on on the ubl list (something pointed 
out in clsc this morning) .  Still, could be cc'ed to ubl.  :)  -Anne

jon.bosak@sun.com wrote:

>[anne.hendry@sun.com:]
>
>| Ken/Mavis/Sue you could add Stephen as an observer, which I 
>| think gives him posting abitlity
>
>Done.  But if this is something that cuts across SCs, the
>discussion should be taking place on the ubl list.
>
>Jon
>
>   Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:12:52 -0800
>   From: Anne Hendry <anne.hendry@sun.com>
>
>     Here is forward post from Stephen regarding the need to define a new 
>   specialized type for amoun type.  There seems to be some code missing 
>   (Stephen, can you provide the section in the middle that seems 
>   missing?), but the gist of the solution is in the prose, and David was 
>   in the meeting and said he understood what needed to be done.  If you 
>   have further questions, send to Stephen and one of us can repost (or 
>   perhaps, Ken/Mavis/Sue you could add Stephen as an observer, which I 
>   think gives him posting abitlity?)?
>
>   Thanks,
>   Anne
>  
>