Paul Donohoe

Dear @GarrusMD, this is a bug in the Viewer. It will be fixed with the release of SDK 1.11. Please note, there are also two errors in the XML of...

Yes. Sorry I should have added : "the fix will then be applied to previous versions of the SDK".

There is no timetable, but we have started the process. It will be complicated for this release, so it may take up to two weeks

Dear @OliverStingl , I cannot replicate the error you see. I have called the live render API https://viewer.ted.europa.eu/api/v2/notices/render with the notice XML, and the returned PDF includes the publication information,...

The time validation is also dependent on EFX2, so it would not be fully implemented until Q1 2025.

Dear @lesomue and @ABackw, Thank you for pointing out this issue. We will add these missing rules for subtypes 38 and 39 in SDK 1.14, and then backport them into...

Thank you @mdewinne for pointing out the confusing wording, and the suggestion for improvement. Yes this does apply to all subtypes that display tenderer information. We have a solution in...

Yes there is - BT-785-Review "Review Previous Identifier". This is optional in the eForms schema ( see https://docs.ted.europa.eu/eforms/latest/schema/all-in-one.html#reviewSection ), and "EM" in the DG GROW Guide (see https://code.europa.eu/eproc/eforms/docs/-/blob/main/guides/gde_005_rew.md). "EM" is...

Hi Csongor, BT-785-Review can refer to another review object in the same notice, or in another notice. It is not a technical ID, it is supplied by the Buyer/Reviewer. We...

Thank you for your question. Unfortunately, this is a fault in EFX1 that cannot be fixed. This fault will be corrected in EFX2, but we do not have a date...