Minor issues with MS-OXCTABL v0.2 RRS feed

  • Question

  • A few suggestions for improving MS-OXCTABL, mostly editorial:

    Section 1.7, second paragraph. "[MS-OXRPC]" probably should be "[MS-OXCRPC]"  "CateogryId" probably should be "CategoryId" The discussion of these status values as being for asynchronous operations is a bit confusing. For example, Example 4.2 sets the SetColumnFlags parameter to 0x00 (perform synchronously), but still shows the reply as TBLSTAT_COMPLETE. "SorOrderCount" probably should be "SortOrderCount", first paragraph. "SorOrderCount" probably should be "SortOrderCount"

    3.1.3 "...and are specified in section 1.5" probably should be "and is specified in section 1.5", first paragraph. "...asynchronous table rop that is executing..." probably should be "...asynchronous table ROP that is executing...", table. "There were not asynchronous operation to abort..." probably should be "There was no asynchronous operation to abort..."

    4.3.1 "ROPid" probably should be "RopId"

    A general suggestion: the idea of categorisation and associated collapsing of rows is a bit confusing. There is a bit of explanation on MSDN that shows how it might translate to a GUI client (, but perhaps that isn't suitable for this kind of specification. Instead, this specification could have a set of diagrams showing a table, and what adding sort and categories (SortTable ROP) does in terms of the header rows, and how rows "disappear" and "reappear" when ExpandRow / CollapseRow ROPs are performed.

    Monday, May 5, 2008 10:29 AM


All replies


    Hi Brad,


    Thank you for your post.  I will get some direction on this and get back to you as soon as possible. 




    Ron Wattam - MSFT

    Monday, May 5, 2008 2:50 PM
  • Hello Brad,


    We have opened a documentation bug covering the editorial tems you’ve pointed out.  There will be applicable corrections made in upcoming refreshed document releases.  We are also evaluating the change you suggested regarding the way the information is presented to see what might be possible. Again we thank you for bringing this to our attention. 


    Ron Wattam – MSFT

    Wednesday, May 7, 2008 5:21 PM
  • Ron,

    Thanks for looking at this. I have a couple more: and The data type probably should be PtypInteger32 (rather than PtypeInteger32) - see MS-OXCDATA Table 10. It would be useful to describe how multiple ROPRestrict operations interact. In particular, does a subsequent restriction replace the previous restrictions, or are they cumulative? If cumulative, how do they interact (AND, OR, etc)?


    Saturday, May 24, 2008 1:54 AM

    Hi Brad,


    Thanks for the update.  I will pass these to the appropriate contacts and corrections will be made as new updates come out.


    Ron Wattam - MSFT

    Wednesday, May 28, 2008 9:49 PM