[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re:
So this means that despite efforts to move ubl to cefact, and despite the availability of approved core component that ubl could use as the basis for developing their BIEs, UBL is refusing to do so. Very interesting and rather disturbing. -------------------------- Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld -----Original Message----- From: Sylvia Webb <swebb@gefeg.com> To: Crawford, Mark <mark.crawford@sap.com> CC: 'Mark Leitch' <ml@tritorr.com>; ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org <ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Mon Mar 06 02:16:04 2006 Mark, Mark Leitch requested that I answer your question. The answer is no. The Document. Details CC based on the Audited TBG17 library dated February 2006 is a ACC. UBL does not use any CEFACT ACC's. Regards, Sylvia _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Crawford, Mark" <mark.crawford@sap.com> To: "Stephen Green" <stephen_green@seventhproject.co.uk> Cc: <ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 12:42 PM Subject: RE: [ubl-dev] UBL 2.0 public review Stephen, In defining the AttachedDocument ABIE, did you use the approved CEFACT Document. Details CC? Kind Regards, Mark
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]