RE: [ubl-ndrsc] Bill&Eve's proposal on local/global elements

["CRAWFORD, Mark" <MCRAWFORD@lmi.org>]

Title: RE: [ubl-ndrsc] Bill&Eve's proposal on local/global elements

Mike R. wrote - 
> >If we want to maintain ebXML/CEFACT CC compliance, then I
> would hesitate
> >to add new
> >RTs.

Eve responded - 
> We probably won't be able to get away without adding at least
> a few, as I
> understand it.  First, we might need syntax-binding-specific
> representation
> terms such as one relating to XML mixed content.  Second,
> since the CC spec
> hasn't really been tried out yet with a real syntax and is
> still in draft
> form (right?), we may run across things they didn't think of.
>  In any case,
> we're committed to feeding back our experience in the hope
> that appropriate
> new RTs will get adopted by the CC side.

I am keeping my mind open on adding RTs.  The initial list was created without any run time analysis.  There are already requests into CEFACT to add CCts and RTs.

Mark