1. Reduce the cost of forms development
1.1. Reduce the Maintainance/Creation complexity of document templates
1.1.1. Forms must adapt EDI standards customized for each specific customer
1.1.2. It must be easy to develop outbound documents
1.1.2.1. The implementation of dynamic features should not be complicated
1.1.2.1.1. Create a framework that will be easy to adapt to any behavior that the customers could require
1.1.2.1.2. Improve the current XSL framework to make it more flexible for new behaviors
1.1.2.1.3. Minimize the usage of Xpath were it is possible
1.1.2.1.4. Minimize the usage of javascript were it is possible.
1.1.2.1.5. generate some simple xpaths automatically
1.1.2.1.6. make more accessible the odification of xpath structures and javascript structures
1.1.2.2. The XML compose process should not be completely manual
1.1.2.2.1. Avoid the repetitive processes when working with loops
1.1.2.2.2. Provide tools to navigate Large XML files easily and in less time
1.1.2.2.3. The XML structure requires to analyze and setup several attributes (required, prompt, skeleton, etc)
1.1.2.2.4. The imp guide can be difficult to understand
1.1.2.3. The XSL composition should not be completely manual
1.1.2.3.1. XSL files are/become too large
1.1.2.3.2. It takes too much time
1.1.2.3.3. The business logic must be defined into xsl transformation rules
1.1.2.3.4. We have to align to TRUBIQUITY's XSL standards
1.1.2.3.5. Usually it is necessary to review the inheritance hierarchy of the XSL templates
1.1.2.3.6. The current edition process doesn't provide an early validation of the xsl structure
1.1.2.4. It should not take too much steps to generate a preview
1.1.2.5. It is easy to make mistakes
1.1.2.5.1. Extra work time required to fix errors
1.1.3. Difficult Dev Process for inbound documents
1.1.3.1. the forms should respond to their contents or data dynamically
1.1.3.1.1. Its not easy to develop dynamic forms or forms with specific behaviors
1.1.3.2. Manual Creation of XSL
1.1.3.2.1. We need to define transformation rules in XSL
1.1.3.3. Most Part of the functionality must be designed in javascript
1.1.3.4. Part of the functionality must be designed in Xpath
1.1.3.5. Extra work created by fixing errors
1.1.3.5.1. It is easy to make mistakes
1.1.4. Difficult Dev process for Turnaround
1.1.4.1. Extra work created by fixing errors
1.1.4.1.1. It is easy to make mistakes
1.1.4.2. It requires complex Xpath logic
1.1.5. Difficult Dev process for Labels
1.1.5.1. Extra work created by fixing errors
1.1.5.1.1. It is easy to make mistakes
1.1.5.2. the forms should respond to their contents or data dynamically
1.1.5.2.1. Its not easy to develop dynamic forms or forms with specific behaviors
1.1.6. Current Implementation is hard to maintain
1.1.6.1. We need to refer to base templates and adapt them for the new form
1.1.6.2. Not GUI option to implement new forms
1.1.6.3. The application doesn't provide help in the form composition
1.1.6.3.1. It takes to much setup (time) to generate the HTML preview
1.1.6.4. No error proof implementation
1.1.6.5. Its hard to track errors
1.1.6.6. Its difficult to add new features as a customer requests
1.1.6.6.1. Since each document has its own complexity it takes time to analyze them and perform changes
1.2. expensive Dev resources
1.2.1. Specialized personnel is required
1.2.1.1. JavaScript skills required
1.2.1.2. EDI knowledge is required
1.2.1.3. XSL and XPath knowledge is required
1.2.1.4. Knowledge in Trubiquity XSL framework is required
1.2.1.5. HTML knowledge is required
1.2.2. Too much development time
1.2.2.1. Extra work time required to fix errors
1.2.2.1.1. It is easy to make mistakes