none
[MS-OXPFOAB] v2.0 Comments RRS feed

  • General discussion

  • G'day,

    Spent some time yesterday implementing the client side part of MS-OXPFOAB v2.0, and have a few comments / thoughts on it.

    1. The document doesn't cover the "Version 3a" folder (although MS-OXOAB now includes a description of Version 3). That would be useful to add, and it might mostly be a matter of changing "Version 2" to "Version 2 / Version 3"

    2. Section 2.2.2.1.2.1 "PidTagAttachFilename" has a table showing the names of the various attachments. I was a bit confused by how the filename MUST start with a capital letter and SHOULD be a name starting with a lower case letter (e.g. RDN Index MUST start with R, and should be rdndex2.oab"). Maybe this is a left-over from a case-insensitive filesystem, but it would probably help to use the right case (which is lower case in my SBS2003) or to say could be either upper or lower case (e.g. MUST be R or r). Also, the Template file ABNR  should be lng (i.e. all lower case) not Lng.

    3. My experience shows there is file beginning with "mac" for each file beginning with "lng", using the same numbering system. That was a bit unexpected, and might be worth adding to 2.2.2.1.2.1.

    4. Section 2.2.2.1.3.1 "PidTagAttachFilename" has the same issue as 2.2.2.1.2.1.

    5. In section 6, several of the footnotes have a typo: "Distrubtion" probably should be "Distribution".

    6. In Section 2.2.1.4, there should be a space between "DN" and "that" on the third line.

    7. In Section 4, the examples should use consistent case for the filenames in the Attachment Table entry.

    8. In Section 4, the PidTagSortLocaleId should use the same formatting for each case (i.e. 0x0409 or 0x409)

    9. In Section 4, the table layout is hard to read because of inconsistent column sizing. Perhaps landscape layout would be appropriate here?

    10. In Section 1.2.1, most of the Microsoft specifications have old dates (June 2008, which is probably the v1.0 issue for most of them), which is probably not what is meant. [This is a widespread problem with the docs]

    Brad
    Thursday, April 23, 2009 10:05 PM

All replies

  • G'day,

    Some more great feedback on yet another document.  Off to create some more technical document issues (TDIs).

    Thanks!
    Developer Consultant
    Friday, April 24, 2009 6:31 AM
    Moderator