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: ;
Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
