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

Re: Issue i009 - Multiple actions. Proposal

From: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:00:40 -0000
Message-ID: <022801c4fef0$0afbd960$abfd6043@exhp>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

I like the pun ;-)

OK, I just was a little confused since it seemed pretty clear to me what the
cardinality requirement was anyway.

How about simply stating the schema rules in text, e.g., "As defined in the
schema, there MUST be one wsa:Action associated with every message.", where
MUST is as defined in RFC2119 ("Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels," RFC 2119, S. Bradner, Harvard University, March 1997.)

Mark.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
To: "Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>; <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 12:47 PM
Subject: RE: Issue i009 - Multiple actions. Proposal


> Mark,
>
> I don't know. I think the spec is clear 'as-is', but in discussing issue
> i009 it was clear some people wanted some extra wording. I got an action
> (no pun intended) to draft some text.
>
> Gudge
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
> > Sent: 20 January 2005 12:25
> > To: Martin Gudgin; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Issue i009 - Multiple actions. Proposal
> >
> > Why's this text needed if the spec (and associated schema)
> > say it has a
> > cardinality of exactly 1?
> >
> > Mark.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
> > To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 9:43 AM
> > 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 13:02:18 GMT

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