Validation warnings: Specification Identifier

[SubandiK]

When creating e-invoices and running them through various online validations, e.g. https://erechnungsvalidator.service-bw.de/
we get a warning, because we use urn:cen.eu:en16931:2017 here.

An easy fix would be to change the string to urn:cen.eu:en16931:2017#compliant#urn:xeinkauf.de:kosit:xrechnun g_3.0#conformant#urn:xeinkauf.de:kosit:extension:xrechnung_3.0

as per the official doc:

Changing this removes the warning and doesn't cause any new issues. Do we maybe want to change it @halfbyte ?
The Readme says this only supports 16931 but this would still be the claim?

[halfbyte]

Hi. Sorry, I'm behind on catching up with your valuable input, but I'm currently in hospital (nothing dramatic, just time consuming).

If I understand this correctly, you're trying to validate the resulting XML against XRechnung which the library is not supporting right now.

It was my understanding that the XRechnung schema is wildly different from the zugferd/factur-x schemas, but I must admit I have never looked at it in detail.

A project I'm working on has just implemented XRechnung, so I can take a peek at that to see how different it all is and how easy it would be to add XRechnung to this library.

But I think just changing the identifier as you suggested will break other things in probably unexpected ways.

I see if I can find some time next week to take a look but no promises with the holidays coming up and all.

[halfbyte]

To clarify: 16931 signifies two different things here:

• the EU standard for electronic invoicing to which all of the various solutions need to adhere to.
• the ZUGFeRD profile which is the minimum profile that is compliant to the above standard.

To be able to fully support XRechnung, we would need to implement the XRechnung profile for ZUGFeRD.

I am in support of adding XRechnung to Secretariat, but I've been hesitant to add it because I was expecting a bit of infrastructure work/ refactoring to be needed to properly do that.

[SubandiK]

thanks for your comments @halfbyte and I hope you'll feel better soon!
This can def wait until after the holidays, today is my last day of work this year anyway.

The "minimum profile" part really helped me to understand the matter, I confirm everything works (with my tax rounding pr) for validators where I can select the "zugferd" standard explicitly, which is all we need for now.

That said, the validation vs XRechnung actually only shows the one "specification identifier" error, aside from that just one warning and 4 infos, so it doesn't look like a herculean task. I might have to support XRechnung anyway, so maybe I can look into it for this gem next year.