[Fwd: [ebxml-dev] UBL implementation of the core components]

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

See question to UBL below.

>Hunsicker: I have just looked at the UBL XML implementation of the core component
>types. Could anyone explain to me why they do not fully respect the CCT as
>defined in the CCTS. By this I mean they have not made use of the "Content"
>attribute. Would it not have been so much simplier to have the content
>attribute and thus be 100% complient with the CCTS and even be able to
>economise on the end tag which is not such a neglible economy. Could anyone
>give the justifications for this?
>
>I'd also be interested in knowing why the CCTS naming convention is not
>respected for the documents (e.g. Order. Buyer. Identifier) and what means,
>if any,  were used to develop a naming convention that provides shortened
>names?
>
>Thanks for your feedback
>
>Regards
>
>Michel Hunsicker
>