At 07:17 PM 1/29/02 -0600, Mike Rawlins wrote:
>See comments in-line
On most of your comments, I think we're all probably in sync to a
sufficient degree. Just one additional note:
>If we want to maintain ebXML/CEFACT CC compliance, then I would hesitate
>to add new
>RTs.
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'll let Mark fill in his thinking here wherever I didn't get it right; he
was our main source of info about how to decide this.
Eve
--
Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center eve.maler @ sun.com
