Re: AS2 XML requirements (was Re: HL7 Standards Process)

["Kit (Christopher) Lueder" <kit@xxxxxxxxx>]

I don't get it. Why should we change AS1 by saying that "all examples
are based on RFC 1767 payloads"? Are we trying to squash extensibility?
Kit.

Dick Brooks wrote:
> 
> > > supported in AS1. The AS1 specification is tightly intertwined with
> > > references to RFC 1767 and all examples are based on RFC 1767 payloads.
> > Now is the time to add this definitive text to AS1.
> 
> I totally agree. For consistency I suggest using similar text as what
> appears in section 2 on page 6 of AS2.


Chris Davenport wrote:
> I'm quite happy to see the EDI-consent sub-type disappear.  As Gunther
> was at pains to point out a couple of years ago, it raises important
> interoperability issues.  

Ouch. That would make edi-int gradually become useless and irrelevant, I
think, as XML and other internet technologies evolve. The problem that
needs to be solved is that there is no good extensibility mechanism in
edi-int.
Kit.

-- 
    _/    _/             Kit C. J. Lueder       
   _/   _/         _/   The MITRE Corp.         Tel:  703-883-5205
  _/_/_/    _/  _/_/_/ 1820 Dolley Madison Bl  Cell: 703-577-2463
 _/   _/   _/    _/   Mailstop W658           FAX:  703-883-3383
_/    _/  _/    _/   McLean, VA 22102        Mail: kit@xxxxxxxxx
Worse than an unanswered question is an unquestioned answer.