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
