Hello Ewan, I checked the archives for your documentation questions, submitted in June of this year. You're referring to http://www.opensrs.org/archives/dev-list/0306/0024.html, yes?
Your questions were acted upon, but it appears that no one actually informed you of the changes that resulted from your comments. Sorry for that. Specifically regarding: > The documentation includes bulk_order in many of the Perl and XML > examples, but it is not otherwise documented. > I see there was some discussion on the list almost a year ago, where > Charles mentioned he didn't know what bulk_order was for but would find > out and would also notify the documentation folks to describe its > functionality. As far as I can tell, that hasn't happened yet. All references to "bulk_order" in the examples were removed from the OpenSRS API Specification on July 3, 2003, no doubt as a result of your questions. We don't have any instances of "bulk_order" on the server-side, so it was removed because it had no business in the examples in the first place. I don't know how "bulk_order" found its way into the documentation, but it apparently doesn't exist, and being a non-entity, it doesn't have any functionality. > Also, many of the descriptions for check_transfer response attributes > include "Obligation: Required". What does this mean? This too, I think we fixed as a result of you pointing it out. The obligations have been revised to correct misinformation and provide more detail. > We were hoping to be able to use the new API change for check_transfer > that returns 'request_address' so we could inform our clients to make > sure they can receive mail at that address to acknowledge the transfer. > However, if we can only retrieve that information after a transfer has > been initiated, it is not as useful. This appears to me to be a change request, so I've submitted it as such. It will be evaluated according to our Product Change Request process, and if we do enhance the product to provide that functionality, the change will be broadcast in a future LRU. Thank you for bringing up those issues. If you have an opportunity to, please review the resulting changes in the current OpenSRS API Specification, available from the Reseller Resource Center, and let me know if more clarification is needed. Thanks again, Clara Clara Cabral Technical Writer Tucows Inc. 416-535-0123 x1239 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ewan Edwards Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 6:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: API Documentation for Process Pending Order On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 01:07:20PM -0800, Robert L Mathews wrote: > > On pages 155-159 of the API manual, the description of the API response > to Process Pending Order could use some work. It's worse than that. The documentation is confusing/misleading in a large number of areas. It is interesting that the documentation has had a bit of a facelift recently, and the bookmarks in the PDF files have returned after having been absent for most releases this past year. Unfortunately, the content seems to have improved little, if any. I hope you get a response to your inquiry; I have a pending documentation question from June. I see by checking the list archive that you posted a question regarding the documentation for Process Pending Order that was answered by Tom Lovasic, however I have received no responses from OpenSRS to my questions since Chuck left. Also, why is the dev-list so sluggish? Your question arrived in my mailbox almost an hour after you sent it to the list. I sit beside another subscriber, and he received your message slightly more than 37 minutes before I did. (This is a rather ironic observation considering Elliot's HTML 'spam' to the discuss-list earlier today). -- // 2 _____________________________________________________________ // / \ \\/ / | Teach a fish to man, and suddenly he's a UNIX expert. | \\/ \_________________________________ __________________________/ Ewan Edwards {e^2}, [EMAIL PROTECTED] |/
