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: ;
> 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.
>
