Difference between version 2.2 and 2.1

[MVP Application]

Hi,

As we know the xsd's for 2.1 and 2.2 are same with minor changes.
Q1. Can we validate 2.1.1 version of xml file against the 2.2 XSDs ? it is backward compatible?

Q2. How to differentiate between 2.2 and 2.1 for version auto detection.

Thanks,

Jay (Application MVP)

[jochen...@gmail.com]

Hi,

yes, 2.2 is backward compatible to 2.1 and 2.0. ZF 2.1 was potentially version 5ish and ZF 2.2 shipped with v8 but interestingly it's formally even valid to use 2.1 with the current v11 codelists (https://ec.europa.eu/digital-building-blocks/wikis/display/DIGITAL/Registry+of+supporting+artefacts+to+implement+EN16931) despite some validators might complain.

If I remember correctly on the request of the french colleagues basic had been extended (BASIC WL : BT-6 (VAT accounting currency code) ; BT-20 (Payment terms) ; BT-111 (Invoice total VAT amount in accounting currency) BASIC : BT-127 (Invoice line note) ; BT-148 (Item Gross Price) ; BT-147 (Item price Discount) ; BG-26 (Invoice Line Period), #108) and EN16931 was extended PO, despatch advice, delivery address on line level/Withholding Taxes, Payment schedule, paid amount with details, applicable trade payments discount terms+Qualifier for roles (especially for Payer / Payee) : rolecode : UNCL 3035 : BY, SU, AB, DL, FF, …(#109), plus we now have a Add "Buyer Tax Representative" in Profil EXTENDED (#95).

As to version autodetection: Why would you need that if nothing has changed? I believe you can not even distinguish between ZF 2 and ZF 2.2, they should both identify as Factur-X 1.

What was done in particular with the 2.2 release reminds to what UN/CEFACT does with CII, they have a D16B version (second release in 2016) of their version 1 ("100" in the URI) but they on purpose continue to publish updated validation artefacts, without requiring changes to the originals, i.e. I believe they also have a current, updated 23A artefact version for the version 1 CII.     

kind regards

Jochen