Doug:
That seems to do the job.
A comment: it would be good at some point
to restate the benefit of using attribute wildcards. Is the concern about upward
compatibility of RM deployments to instances of potential next versions of the
schema, or for potential customization?
Regards,
Jacques
From: Doug Davis
[mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 3:51
AM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-rx] Issue i013 -
proposed text changes (typo fixed)
fixed a typo.
-Doug
__________________
Per
my AI on the last conference call here are the list of changes I propose for
the resolution of issue i013:
In
the WS-RM Policy doc:
After
line 173, add to the normative outline:
<wsrm:MaxMessageNumber
Number="xs:unsignedLong" ... /> ?
After
line 202, add to the more verbose section of the normative outline:
/wsrm:RMAssertion/wsrm:MaxMessageNumber
A parameter that specifies the maximum message number that
the RM Destination will accept. If omitted, the default value of the
maximum unsigned long will be assumed.
/wsrm:RMAssertion/wsrm:MaxMessageNumber/@Number
The maximum message number.
After
line 434, add to the schema:
<xs:element name="MaxMessageNumber"
minOccurs="0" >
<xs:complexType>
<xs:attribute name="Number"
type="xs:unsignedLong" use="required" />
<xs:anyAttribute
namespace="##any" processContents="lax" />
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
thanks
-Doug