France will make e-invoice required soon (E-Invoicing comes into effect in France).
So it will be good to have in standard at least one module to support the reception and emission of invoices for french companies.
SUPER PDP, as already discussed, seems to be a good option.
We propose to write a module edocument_super_pdp to implement the SUPER PDP API similar to the edocument_peppol_peppyrus.
We plan to use their custom API instead of the AFNOR API because it will require more effort such as supporting the 3 possibles format (Factur-X France, UBL France, CII France) compare to a unique normalized JSON for the invoice reception.
This module will also support PEPPOL for Belgian companies.
The proposal does not include the e-reporting for which SUPER PDP has not yet published the API.
Budget
We have estimated the effort to 4 days of development.
For B2CK this means a budget of 2000€ (without VAT).
The budget will be divided in equal parts between the contributors. Contributors may add an upper limit (minimum: 200€) to their contribution in case there are not enough contributors. For that they will just need to post a message with their limit (so others may anticipate their costs).
By the way, I thought the support for either three formats (Factur-X, UBL, CII), was the Plateforme Agréée’s role so that Tryton has just to support one (standard XP_Z12-013, section 5.4.1). Or I missed something.
While I can understand the technical rationale behind choosing SuperPDP’s internal API, I regret that a Free Software project has chosen not to use an existing standard and has sacrificed interoperability, even though—while it is not a requirement—communications from the DGFIP, AIFE, and AFNOR encourage the implementation of this standard.
That’s for sending but you may receive any of the 3 formats so you must support all of them for reception.
I guess it is the reason SUPER PDP provides also an API to convert from one format to another.
I think the French authorities made a mistake by not imposing a unique format like it was done in Belgium with PEPPOL.
I doubt that this standard will really bring real interoperability.
But they are not the one that needs to invest 3 times the cost to implement their 3 duplicates formats.
DGFIP has already been deceptive by not implementing on official portal and delegate completely to private sector. So it is easy for them to “encourage” other to do what they could not.
And implementing the “standard” will cost 3 times the current cost (without real guarantee of interoperability).
I do not think the sponsoring will be successful in such case. So it is better to have a working solution than nothing.
