Re: [wsrm] Rel YY

[John Fuller <jfuller@wernervas.com>]

It also simplifies things for implementers as object creation goes
as the header and message order elements weren't contained in a common  
RM envelope.


On Friday, September 26, 2003, at 05:52 PM, Tom Rutt wrote:

> Jacques Durand wrote:
>
>> Sunil, Bob,
>>
>> I think your revised proposal is compatible with the concerns that
>> motivated mine.
>>
>>
>> > I prefer MessageOrder (or what ever is the name) sub-element as the
>> > triggering mechanism rather than the value of some attribute or  
>> sub-element
>> > to distinguish the category.
>>
>> I favor this too: more consistent with what we do for ack requested,  
>> dup elimination.
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>
> I really do not care that much, but the messageOrder element, when we  
> took sequenceNumber
> out, had no data but only the status attribute.  By putting the status  
> attribute with the sequenceNumber, we got rid of the now awkward  
> orphaned messageOrder shema structure.
>
> If we are not going to move sequenceNumber back with messageOrder, I  
> think the schema
> we have is more concise.  This is, as always, a matter of style  
> preferences and artistic viewpoints.
>
> Tom Rutt
>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --  
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Tom Rutt		email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@fsw.fujitsu.com
> Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster  
> of the OASIS TC), go to  
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/ 
> leave_workgroup.php.
>