[Os-project-managers] Quick question about GeneralFileHeader

[Horand Gassmann]

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