[ubl] Re: [ebxml-dev] Re: [ubl-lcsc] Re: [ubl-ndrsc] UN/CEFACT ATG'Generic Header' Project

As counter thought (I would not put this as strong as an opinion), there is
one use case for having a generic header.

If, for example, you take using UBL with ebXML MS, then there is information
in the ebXML MS header that "might" be useful to the process that is
handling the UBL document, for example the time the message was created, or
its identity.

I would guess that most implementations separate the ebXML MS envelope from
the UBL document, therefore there is a risk of this information being lost.
There are a number of ways around this, including:
1. Copying the information from the ebXML MS header into a "generic header"
within the UBL document - this should be optional, if done at all.
2. Providing an API to the ebXML MS implementation that allows an
application to derive this information.

Just my $0.02c.

David

-----Original Message-----
From:  [mailto:]
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 6:18 PM
To: 
Cc: ; ;

Subject: Re: [ebxml-dev] Re: [ubl-lcsc] Re: [ubl-ndrsc] UN/CEFACT ATG
'Generic Header' Project