I would suggest something in between. Ken's reply was very good, but perhaps had too much detail when, as Tony says, most of David's points did not really apply to the work of this TC.
I am sure we all know David, and realise that his comments are always well thought out and that he will not let go of an issue unless it is resolved to his satisfaction. I would suggest cutting down Ken's response slightly to explain our scope, why that means many of David's comments do not apply and say that we will take his comments into account where applicable.
This comment of David's intrigued me:
"d) Have separate optional sections for logical parts of the content - so
the processing codes themselves are not mixed up with human readable
descriptions, documentation and such. Provide means to make these
externally referenced to encourage use of registry services instead of
a single "kitchen sink" XML approach."
Ignoring the first bit as not being relevant to us, what is required to get the best use out of a registry, say the ebXML regrep? Should we be looking at a granularity of access below the complete list? Perhaps we have missed a requirement here, but I do not have enough experience of using registry services to be sure.
Regards
Paul Spencer
Director
Boynings Consulting Ltd
http://boynings.co.uk
>
