RE: documenting OCP parameters

["Martin Stecher" <martin.stecher@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Yes, I noticed that problem too. In addition to what you mention
> above, it is bad that Http-Profile has to re-list Uri as a member.
> 
> Note that documenting with BNF does not solve it since NO message
> definition still has Services. The only thing I could come up with is
> inheritance-like approach, which I hesitated to propose as a starting
> point. For example, in HTTP you would write:
> 
> 	Profile: structure <Service> {
> 	             [Aux-Parts: Am-Parts];
> 	             [Skip-Parts: Am-Parts];
> 	};
> 
> Would that be clear enough? Or would you prefer:
> 
> 	Profile: structure Service with {
> 		[Aux-Parts: Am-Parts];
> 		[Skip-Parts: Am-Parts];
> 	};
> 
> or
> 
> 	Profile: extends Service with {
> 		[Aux-Parts: Am-Parts];
> 		[Skip-Parts: Am-Parts];
> 	};
> 

I think, this last option is easiest to understand.

Martin