RE: [ubl-csc] [Fwd: [ubl-dev] UDEF applied to CCTS - a Proposal for Alignment]

["Sue Probert" <sue.probert@dial.pipex.com>]

I agree absolutely with Eduardo and Mark on this.

-----Original Message-----
From: CRAWFORD, Mark [mailto:MCRAWFORD@lmi.org]
Sent: 20 February 2004 01:56
To: Eduardo Gutentag; Jon.Bosak@Sun.COM
Cc: ubl-csc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ubl-csc] [Fwd: [ubl-dev] UDEF applied to CCTS - a Proposal
for Alignment]


agreed.  And from my perspective there is absolutely no reason to adopt UDEF
in CCTS as it is unnecessary.

________________________________

From: Eduardo Gutentag [mailto:Eduardo.Gutentag@Sun.COM]
Sent: Thu 2/19/2004 8:22 PM
To: Jon.Bosak@Sun.COM
Cc: ubl-csc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ubl-csc] [Fwd: [ubl-dev] UDEF applied to CCTS - a Proposal for
Alignment]



I'm not sure much more effort should be expended on this at all in
an UBL forum.

On a recent occasion I was queried as to when would UBL finally include
UDEFs; the query was somewhat hostile and it obviously came from a UDEF
advocate. My answer was that UBL would certainly consider it when it
became part of CCTS. Surprisingly enough this was accepted as a very
legitimate answer. I propose that this become our stock answer and let
CCTS deal with this. We *don't* have to justify ourselves or CCTS. And
indeed,
if CCTS ever adopts UDEF we'll have to consider it...