EM Messages and Notification SC

 View Only
  • 1.  Additional Changes Suggested by Alessandro

    Posted 01-18-2008 15:07
    Hi Everyone,
    
    Alessandro has suggested some additional changes which occured to him 
    while doing his action items but which did not occur during our 
    face-to-face meetings. I expect we will accept these, but to save 
    time, I am doing two versions of the complete specification that 
    includes all the changes we did decide to do: one with all of 
    Alessandro's suggestions and one without. That way, whatever we 
    decide, completing our work will still be expedited.
    
    I will also summarize the substantive changes, not the additional 
    proofreading errors he caught:
    
    1: In every bulleted rules section, Alessandro suggests removing the 
    the repetitions of EDXL in the message name, e.g. RequestResource 
    MessageID replaces EDXLRequestResource MessageID.
    
    This is a fairly extensive amount of work but has no impact on the 
    way the spec works and reduces sheer repetition.
    
    2: In every xml message schema and xml example the word 'Message' is 
    deleted from the message name, e.g. 


  • 2.  RE: [emergency-msg] Additional Changes Suggested by Alessandro

    Posted 01-18-2008 15:22
     
    
    > 


  • 3.  RE: [emergency-msg] Additional Changes Suggested by Alessandro

    Posted 01-18-2008 15:53
    Thanks for the clarification Alessandro,
    
    I stand corrected, and I will amend what I change accordingly.
    
    Cheers,
    Rex
    
    At 10:21 AM -0500 1/18/08, Alessandro Triglia wrote:
    >
    >
    >>  


  • 4.  Update: RE: [emergency-msg] Additional Changes Suggested byAlessandro

    Posted 01-18-2008 22:22
    Hi Everyone,
    
    I wanted to let you know that I WILL finish this today, and send out 
    the result as well as upload it to the SC Document Repository. 
    However, I obviously ran into a lot more work than I was reckoning 
    on, so I am not doing two versions. I am only doing the version with 
    ALL the suggested changes. So if we decide against it, it will be 
    more work to undo it, though not nearly as much as making the changes 
    has been.
    
    Cheers,
    Rex
    
    At 7:52 AM -0800 1/18/08, Rex Brooks wrote:
    >Thanks for the clarification Alessandro,
    >
    >I stand corrected, and I will amend what I change accordingly.
    >
    >Cheers,
    >Rex
    >
    >At 10:21 AM -0500 1/18/08, Alessandro Triglia wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>