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
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>