[Os-project-managers] Quick question about GeneralFileHeader
Horand Gassmann
Horand.Gassmann at Dal.Ca
Wed Jan 26 05:59:44 EST 2011
Jun Ma <majxuh at hotmail.com> wrote:
> I am for the header sequence be enforced here and all optional. It
> was required. So it shouldn't create any compatibility issue. The
> header sequence makes the xml look better.
Thanks, Jun. I understood that to say that in OSiL we should make the
<instanceHeader> optional as well. I have implemented optional
elements <optionHeader> and <resultHeader> in OSoL and OSrL, but I
have kept the <instanceHeader> required. (Mostly because I have some
trepidation about messing with Kipp's code...B) ) I have no objection
to making it optional.
Cheers
gus
More information about the Os-project-managers
mailing list