| ▲ | blipvert 3 days ago | |
Any reason why they wouldn’t use EDIFACT instead? | ||
| ▲ | tnorgaard 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | |
As having implemented EDIFACT parsers and translation layers, Universal Business Language (Oasis UBL) is a bliss to work with. Yes, it's a big standard and looks scary when starting out with it, but it is very well designed for a complicated world. | ||
| ▲ | daliusd 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
Google says following: In some member states, like Germany, the EDIFACT format, when compliant with the EN 16931 data model, is accepted as a valid e-invoice format. EN 16931 defines what information needs to be in an invoice (the data model), while EDIFACT INVOIC defines how that information is structured and formatted for electronic transmission (the syntax). | ||
| ▲ | blipvert 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | |
OK, it’s been a long time since I worked in this space. Seems like it’s an XML version of the INVOIC message, but is it required to support the XML syntax, or does the plain old EDI format suffice? | ||