W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > January 2007

Re: Some editorial issues with the Metadata document

From: David Illsley <david.illsley@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 17:27:59 +0000
To: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Cc: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF8E4BB00D.BE3C7B23-ON8025725D.005EC6A0-8025725D.005FF182@uk.ibm.com>

>     * The NOTE in section 3.2.3 after the first paragraph that if both
>       anonymous and non anonymous responses are supported there should
>       be a separate alternative including only anonymous responses
>       consists of one long sentence with no punctuation making it fairly
>       hard to parse but also lending it a certain Joycean quality which
>       is to be commended.

I thank you for the commendation, I am rather proud ;-)

However, having been someone who has spend much time trying to parse such 
sentences in other specs, I'd agree with a re-write. How about:

NOTE: If both AnonymousResponses and NonAnonymousResponses are supported, 
and the intention is to allow either to be used, care should be taken to 
ensure there are alternatives such that a subject which supports only one 
will have a compatible policy [WS Policy 1.5 - Primer section 3.4]. There 
should be at least an alternative which includes just AnonymousResponses 
as a nested assertion and an alternative with just NonAnonymousResponses 
as a nested assertion 

Received on Monday, 8 January 2007 17:28:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:15 UTC