Fw: spec question and > 1.0 items

[Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>]

Forwarding private comments for basis
of references

Rich Thompson
----- Forwarded by Rich
Thompson/Watson/IBM on 07/09/2003 02:40 PM -----

Andre Kramer <andre.kramer@eu.citrix.com> 05/09/2003 07:23 AM

To:        Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS         cc:        Andre Kramer <andre.kramer@eu.citrix.com>         Subject:        RE: spec question and > 1.0 items

Rich,

I also just noticed that we have some maxOccurs="unbounded" in:

<complexType name="Contact">
                
                 <sequence>
                
                 
               
<element name="postal" type="types:Postal"
minOccurs="0" />
                
                 
               
<element name="telecom" type="types:Telecom"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" />
                
                 
               
<element name="online" type="types:Online"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" />
                
                 
               
<element name="extensions" type="types:Extension"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" />
                
                 </sequence>
                
</complexType>
<complexType name="Online">
                
                 <sequence>
                
                 
               
<element name="email" type="xsd:string"
minOccurs="0" />
                
                 
               
<element name="uri" type="xsd:string" minOccurs="0"
maxOccurs="unbounded" />
                
                 
               
<element name="extensions" type="types:Extension"
minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" />
                
                 </sequence>
                
</complexType>

Contact.telecom, Contact.online, Online.uri are not arrays in the IDL.
Should remove the maxOccurs as these build [] stubs.

woops...

>  -----Original Message-----
> From:                
 Andre Kramer  
> Sent:                
09 May 2003 11:16
> To:                
'Rich Thompson'
> Cc:                
Andre Kramer
> Subject:              
  spec question and > 1.0 items
> 
> 6.1.17 has UserProfile.bdate while ch 11 has bDate in table. Seems
it
> should be bdate?
> 
> With the "resource URL rewrite return boolean" deferred
item could you
> add?
> 
> - Allow negotiation between consumer and producer as to whether resource
> proxying is needed.
> - Should we allow wsrp-url values to be relative (rather than absolute)?
> 
> regards,
> Andre
>