Doug,
Doug Bunting wrote:
> Tom and Sunil,
>
> Is this issue about preferences against attributes or against using
> attributes to drive somewhat larger decisions? I am primarily curious
It's the latter.
>
> though it might make me lean one way or the other.
>
> At the moment, one thing seems necessary to me is preventing a sender
> including a request for ordering but no sequence number or ending a
If the decision making is based on the values of the attributes or elements,
we cannot enforce it by schema.
>
> group that is not ordered. How exactly those things are tied together
> and how the schema prevents four or six categories where only three have
> "meaning" seems much less important. But, I would certainly prefer the
> proposed MessageOrder element or similar attributes *not* be allowed (in
> the schema, not just the text) without the existing SequenceNumber element.
Both the proposals (Jacques's initial proposal and my amended one) do require
SequenceNumber. The only difference is I wanted it to be Optional, where as
Jacques wanted it to be mandatory.
>
>
> I also believe (going the other way) that it is better to restrict a
> messaging schema so that each thing you want to "say" can be said in
Agree.
>
> only one way. If we re-introduce the MessageOrder element or add more
> to the SequenceNumber attributes to introduce the same categorization,
> we should remove any (overlapping) special semantics for a
> SequenceNumber of 0.
At this time we are only listing alternate choices. We eventually have to pick one,
not both.
-Sunil
