RE: [ebxml-cppa-comment] Public Comment

["Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>]

Hi,

The CPPA teleconference this week (Jan 23) is scheduled to discuss your
issue.

I personally believe that the schema is, in this case correct. However,
the
TC must establish a consensus on the issue and decide how to handle the
apparent
discrepancy. For example, we may decide to add an errata item (to be
rolled 
up into the next version the TC approves). 

The minutes for this week may provide you with some info. 

We will also reply with on the comment list when the consensus
resolution
emerges.

Thanks
Dale Moberg

-----Original Message-----
From: comment-form@oasis-open.org [mailto:comment-form@oasis-open.org] 
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 6:09 AM
To: ebxml-cppa-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ebxml-cppa-comment] Public Comment
Importance: Low


Comment from: louise.peres@francetelecom.com

Hi,

I am studying ebXML and specially CPP and CPA.

There is an differenece between the document ebCPP2_0.pdf and the schema
cpp-cpa-2_0.xsd.

line 668 about Certificate, it's written "one or more"

line 771, about SecurityDetails, it's written "one or more".

In the schema,in the PartyInfo definition, the elements Certificate and
SecurityDetails have minOccurs="0".

Best Regards

Louise

To unsubscribe from this list, send a post to
ebxml-cppa-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org, or visit
http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/.