Re: [ubl-dev] Comments on UBL-NDR 2 Versioning

[david.lyon@preisshare.net]

Quoting Chin Chee-Kai <cheekai@SoftML.Net>:

> At 10:24 PM 2006-11-12 +0100, Marc de Graauw wrote:
>> The term 'compatibility' is not defined. It's very likely the spec uses it
>> in the sense of backward compatibility, where every UBL version n document
>> is a valid instance of an UBL version n+1 language definition, but since
>> this is a thorny issue, I suggest the meaning of 'compatibility' should be
>> defined.
>
> A very point-blank note indeed.  When I attended the recent UBL TC meeting
> in Singapore, there appeared to be general reluctance (myself included) to
> tackle head on with this topic, together with other heavy-weight words like
> "compliance", "interoperable", "customization".  And the worse is certainly
> to try to talk about them all at once;

Hi Chin,

Pardon my uneducated question, I've probably missed something  
important but - why?