Legal aspects of empty elements

[Chin Chee-Kai <cheekai@softml.net>]

This is related, but separate discussion with the empty
elements found in the sample instances done by Stephen.

I don't profess to know much about legality, but the
question I have is based on normal working experience.
And I'm seeking perhaps some answers or initial thoughts
on this towards the direction of actual implementation.

In normal contracts, of which P.O. is one type, there is
a slight difference between not stating something, as
opposed to stating an empty return.  

The difference is mostly acceptable if everything goes 
well, but becomes basis for sometimes great grounds for 
dispute when things go astray.  

Now in the electronic equivalent in XML, the technology
permits the equivalent of stating empty value (instantiate
element which contains empty string) versus not stating
at all (no instantiation).

So if we have a policy or rule of some sort that says
we do not instantiate unless instance applications 
consciously wish to indicate an empty value, then it
seems to match closer to normal business practice.
(A more compact instance representation comes as a bonus,
though I think the implications derived seems to value
more).

What does the list think about this?  Or does it fall
outside LC's scope, or even UBL's scope?



Best Regards,
Chin Chee-Kai
SoftML
Tel: +65-6820-2979
Fax: +65-6743-7875
Email: cheekai@SoftML.Net
http://SoftML.Net/