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

Re: LC101/LC104 - proposed text

From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:36:33 -0400
To: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
Cc: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-id: <51CE16B3-60AE-46CE-BCFD-C2E5CBEA03FB@Sun.COM>
I'm a little confused. The pseudo schema has no extensibility points  
shown. The text that follows describes all the extensibility points.  
That's what's desired - right ? The latest editors draft is at:  


On Jul 15, 2005, at 5:54 PM, Prasad Yendluri wrote:

> Jonathan,
> Leaving out everything is acceptable but showing just one  
> extensibility point as it does now would be confusing.
> To avoid that I believe we had resolved LC issue that raised this  
> originally (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws- 
> addressing-comments/2005Apr/0002.html) by agreeing to remove the  
> <xs:Any/>* entry in the end in table / listing 2-1. That change is  
> yet to be reflected in the spec though.
> Regards,
> Prasad
> Jonathan Marsh wrote:
>> +1 except -1 for bloating the pseudo-schema. Nowhere else in this  
>> spec, or in the WSDL 2.0 spec, are extension points called out in  
>> the pseudo-schema. I believe this was intentional, as the purpose  
>> of the pseudo-schema is to provide quick reference to the required  
>> constructs. Enumeration of the extensibility points is adequately  
>> documented in the prose and in the real schema, and I think that's  
>> sufficient. In fact, the pseudo-schema notation doesn't even  
>> support wildcards and we'd have to augment it to provide them. I  
>> don't think leaving the pseudo-schema alone weakens your fine  
>> proposal at all.
>>> -----Original Message----- From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
>> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-
>>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Glen Daniels Sent: Wednesday, July  
>>> 13, 2005 8:52 AM To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org Subject: LC101/ 
>>> LC104 - proposed text Hi folks: Here's an amended proposal for  
>>> LC101/104.  Replace first sentence in section 2.1 with: --- An  
>>> endpoint reference is a collection of abstract properties. This  
>>> specification defines a core set of properties, but it is also
>> possible
>>> for other specifications to extend these with other properties.  
>>> The semantics and XML Infoset representation (see next section)  
>>> for any
>> such
>>> extension properties will be described in their defining
>> specifications.
>>> The core properties are as follows: --- With regard to the XML  
>>> infoset section, I notice that we're missing pseudo-schema for  
>>> the {any} element and the @{any} attribute - I think we should  
>>> add that. Then, after the last "/wsa:EndpointReference/@{any}"  
>>> definition and before the example, we should add: --- NOTE:  
>>> Specifications which describe any extension elements or
>> attributes
>>> used to augment the above model will explain any effects those  
>>> extensions may have on the abstract properties. They may affect
>> either
>>> the core properties or extension properties as defined in section  
>>> 2.1. --- I think this gets across what we discussed on Monday.  
>>> Thanks, --Glen

Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.

Received on Monday, 18 July 2005 14:16:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:10 UTC