W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > January 2005

Re: Issue i009 - Multiple actions. Proposal

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 07:23:09 -0500
To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFA778E2E7.71C69284-ON85256F8F.00434A68-85256F8F.00440A50@us.ibm.com>
Martin,
  I'm a bit confused as to why this is needed.  If the spec lists the 
cardinality of this property as "exactly one" then is this text necessary? 
 When additional text is added to something as clear as "exactly one" its 
usually because there's a use-case or situation that the spec authors were 
worried about.  Is this the case?  If the text remains, that's ok, but it 
just seems redundant.
thanks
-Doug




"Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
01/20/2005 04:43 AM

To
<public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
cc

Subject
Issue i009 - Multiple actions.  Proposal







I had an action to make a proposal for closing issue i009 - Multiple
actions. The general feeling in the room at the face-to-face seemed to
be that sticking with one action (possibly per actor/role depending on
how we close issue i007) was fine, but we needed to call this out in the
spec and point out that layered specifications need to take this into
account. Here is the proposal:

Add the following sentence to the description of the [action] property
in section 3 of the core spec.

                 Protocol and application designers building on this
specification are encouraged to take care when designing their protocols
or               applications that they do not violate the requirement 
that there
be exactly one [action] property.

Flames, comments, suggestions to the usual address.

Gudge
Received on Thursday, 20 January 2005 12:23:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:01 GMT