Talk:EbXML

Merge of ebXML
I dont support the merge. tytytytyThere is extensive duplication between the two articles, and of the two, this article has many more links to it, and would therefore seem to be the logical choice to retain. RayGates 01:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a merge is warranted because of the significant duplication. The extensive duplication will also (hopefully) make a merge rather easy. The direction of the merge may not be as important. However, that having been said, the ebXML article has less history than the ebXML Architecture article. Therefore I would support merging ebXML into ebXML Architecture and create a redirect from ebXML to ebXML Architecture. Steve R Barnes 22:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. However I dont understand why the article was called ebXML Architecture.  Any idea's?  John Vandenberg 00:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If the merge is not supported because this page has more links, then that's an easy enough move to, when merging, merge the links as well. A good question was brought up above. Which title is more accurate? ebXML or the one with Architecture? I support a merge, as they're pretty much the same, but it should be decided which has a more accurate article name before. Radagast83 06:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The most important is to have an accurate title page: from my point of view, this would be ebXML and neither ebxml nor ebXML Architecture. Thus I propose to remove the existing page EbXML (there is no real history, only a redirect here) and to move ebXML Architecture page to the former one. It will keep the history, then we will be able to remove the content of Ebxml and put it into EbXML. Regarding the links, this is not a real problem as this can be done later with a bot. Furthermore, most of them point directly to EbXML! Panoramix 11:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good plan. If anyone has objections, please raise them in the next week, otherwise the re-arrangment will go ahead. John Vandenberg 13:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Since it has been over a week I decided to be bold and move it myself. Hope everyone's okay with it. Radagast83 05:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good. John Vandenberg 12:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"ID" or "is" ?
Can some one more in the know determine if "id" (or ID) is appropriate here or should it be "is"?Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC) Sorry -- "A conversation id for linking related messages"Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Srednuas Lenoroc which sentence(s) are you referring too? is and id are used several times on the page and its unclear which you are questioning? KylieTastic (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably ID then, for identifier. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)