Moi, tässä taa maili mistä irkissä puhuin.

Heitin noita vastauksia pitkälti omasta päästä, joten korjaa ihmeessä jos puhun mitä sattuu ristiriidassa mitä mietitte :P.
Laita forwardina mulle takas sit ku ootte miettiny (no jarmo ja ville varmasti miettii... ;) jos on lisättävää.

----- Edelleenvälitetty viesti lähettäjältä jesse.peurala@evtek.fi -----
       Päiväys: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 23:02:59 +0300
     Lähettäjä: Jesse Peurala <jesse.peurala@evtek.fi>
Vastausosoite: Jesse Peurala <jesse.peurala@evtek.fi>
       Otsikko: Fwd: IP Nearshoring: Some questions concerning the Nedom Athletic Club System
 Vastaanottaja: pekkahel@evtek.fi

Hi!

The answers to your questions:

Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Andreea Vasile" <andreea.vasile@gmail.com>
> Date: April 3, 2008 3:33:47 PM GMT+03:00
> To: "Jesse Juhani Peurala" <jessep@evtek.fi>
> Subject: Re: IP Nearshoring: Some questions concerning the Nedom
> Athletic Club System
>
> Hello, Jesse
>
> Sorry to bother you again. The guys in charge of the Contracts
> subsystem sent me some more questions for you. Here they are:
> Is the currency fixed to SEK?

Yes.

> Is the formulation in the printed contract fixed? (there are some
> strange expressions, such as 'The contract period extend over a
> period of 2008-1-1 – 2009-1-1")

You should use the ISO 8601 standard for date notations: YYYY-MM-DD. E.g. in this case it would be 2008-01-01.
The figures illustrating the different views of the system are only guidelines however and modification is advisable.

> Is "January" in the last paragraph of the contract fixed? (there
> are no dots under it) Or should it be the first month of the
> contract period?

The invoice should be sent at the first month of the contract period. The answer to your question is no, it's not fixed :).

> Are invoices likely to extend over one page?

Most of the time all the invoice's payment fields should be able to fit one page.
The possibility an invoice extends over one page due to numerous small different payments should however be supported.

> Is it a correct implementation that the print command exports the
> contract as PDF, while the e-mail command sends an e-mail to a
> specified address with the PDF attached?

The print command should open the browsers Print-function so the user can choose from printing to PDF or paper.
The e-mail command should send and e-mail to the recipient containing the PDF-file as an attachment and an HTML contract in the body text.

> Due to buggy aspects of browser and operating system support of the
> Adobe Reader plugin, is it correct that there should not be an
> actual preview (as it is shown in page 36) but more appropriate, a
> form with disabled fileds very much alike with the contract
> generator (page 34) with buttons for Edit, Delete, Print, E-mail?

Yes, as long as the user can preview the generated contract in its final form before confirmation.
E.g. adding a Preview-button, which opens the contract in pdf-form, with the additional buttons you mentioned.

> In section 5.6.1 you say "After generating the contract and setting
> its status to «signed» there is an option to open the invoice
> generator [...]". Is it correct to have a button appear in the
> contract viewer (described in question 6) which opens the invoice
> generator, once the contract is set to "signed" - which, in turn,
> hides the "Edit" and "Delete" buttons?

Yes.

> Thank you!
>
> Andreea

Best regards,
Pekka Hellsten

----- Välitetty viesti päättyy -----