<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 12/01/2008 12:07 AM, Shane B Weeden:
<blockquote
cite="mid:OF02FEDD83.658ADB66-ON4A257511.007805EF-4A257511.007985F4@au1.ibm.com"
type="cite"><br>
<font face="sans-serif" size="2">I don't have any problem with the
development
and promotion of AX. The point was simply that we have an SREG 1.1 spec
in draft, and I can't see any good reason for it to include in the 6th
paragraph of section 4 ", and all included fields MUST be taken from
the set of fields defined in this specification." It appears to be
boxing something in that simply doesn't require a box. </font><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Or perhaps manage a list of agreed fields which may be taken depending
on the purpose. This list could be extended by the different OP/RPs
until must likely every possible field would be covered. This could get
to some hundred or so, but I wouldn't mind, since an OP doesn't have to
answer all fields, many which will be most likely optional.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>