RE: [ubl-dev] How big can the invoice number field be?

["David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

Steve,

The TA work is really more abstract.  So generating test conformance mechanisms directly I don't see as a design goal for them.

One reason is that the outputs and methods have to be tailored to the use case.

DW

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [ubl-dev] How big can the invoice number field be?
> From: "Stephen Green" <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, February 13, 2008 5:29 pm
> To: "Joel Paula" <jp@scientia.pt>
> Cc: ubl-dev@lists.oasis-open.org
> 
> I have been thinking that a set of prose test assertions might be
> the ideal starting point.
> 
> (For background on what I mean by test assertions see:
>  http://wiki.oasis-open.org/tag/TestAssertionGuidelines - a work in
> progress mind.)
> 
> If these are written with some behind the scenes TA markup (pending TA markup
> from OASIS TAG TC, say) then artefacts like genericode, CAM and Schematron
> are not prejudiced by the choice of one over another because either or all
> can be generated from the markup (as could a conformance test suite).
> 
>