Handling of MultiPointType

[ue71603]

addresses: #442

[ue71603]

@skinkie @trurlurl can ou agree?

[trurlurl]

So we now have the parameter as de facto optional and we say that it is important and "should" be set - I think that is OK. But why not more consequently change the cardinality to 0:1 in order to clearly mark it as optional in the documentation table? That would require a slightly greater change in the documentation but it could not lead to confusion any more. (Do we have other places where an element of an optional part is mandatory?)

[sgrossberndt]

I may be quite late to the party regarding the state of OJP 2.0, but the definitions in MultiPointType are not really clear to me. Renaming or removing somePoints is probably out of question, but we definitely should clarify the documentation. I hope this is still possible?

[sgrossberndt]

Please resolve the conflicts so we can get this in.

[ue71603]

@sgrossberndt as soon as André is happy, we can merge this one and then also the release

[sgrossberndt]

@sgrossberndt as soon as André is happy, we can merge this one and then also the release

@ue71603 What about the added minOccurs="0" as discussed in the issue 442

[sgrossberndt]

Only blocked regarding to minOccurs="0", otherwise I am fine with the change.

[ue71603]

@sgrossberndt when ok for you, then we can merge.

[sgrossberndt]

I also just found out it had minOccurs="0" before until it was removed on 24.05.2023 at 14:43 in "More optimisation methods, reorganising filters and policy for Trip Request according to discussions (#353)".
Since that commit handled multiple things at once it is not clear to me whether this was done on purpose back then.

[sgrossberndt]

Apparently it was done on purpose back then by @ue71603:
#353 (comment)