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

Re: LC101/LC104 - proposed text

From: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 07:47:29 -0700
Message-ID: <42DBC101.30108@webmethods.com>
To: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
CC: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Marc,

You are right. The change for LC3 is reflected in the latest draft. I 
was looking at an older version.
The pseudo schema shows no extensibility points which is consistent. thanks.

Prasad


Marc Hadley wrote:

>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:  
>http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2004/ws/addressing/ws-addr- 
>core.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#eprinfoset
>
>Marc.
>
>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 14:48:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:06 GMT