I watch this discussion about guidelines and I wonder what happened. Some
of us thought that each sender would send all of the information they had to
send, and receivers would simply pick out what they needed. Since the
sender couldn't send any more, and generally receivers were already doing
business with these senders in a manual world utilizing this information,
this approach would stop the need for "partner by partner" relationships.
Obviously this didn't happen, and EDI (which some of us though would be
fairly straightforward) became somewhat complicated.
It is interesting that many seem to think XML will be easier for some
reason. But if "partner by partner" relationships still prevail, it is
difficult to see how XML will become easier.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hurd, Richard A (Rich) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 4:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: EDI Document Guidelines
> At this point I switched subjects and tried to get agreement on the
> weather.
>
Your conclusion, it would appear, is that the weather, like EDI guidelines,
are subject to local conditions.
Which is exactly what I was trying to say.
It's cloudy here, and there's rain predicted on Sunday. Too bad for the
Bosch Spark Plug Grand Prix, running this weekend here in the Lehigh Valley
of PA. :-{)
=======================================================================
To signoff the EDI-L list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
=======================================================================
To signoff the EDI-L list, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To contact the list owner: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/edi-l%40listserv.ucop.edu/
