W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor-comments@w3.org > August 2005

RE: W3C WS-Choreo WG - Issue 973

From: Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 15:37:07 +0100
To: "'Bjoern Hoehrmann'" <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: <public-ws-chor-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <004901c59901$fe967f20$0901a8c0@ie.oracle.com>

Bjoern,

I solicited feedback from the WG on this issue and this email seem to
sum up the groups position:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005Aug/0007.html

Martin.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bjoern Hoehrmann [mailto:derhoermi@gmx.net] 
>Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 9:09 PM
>To: Martin Chapman
>Cc: public-ws-chor-comments@w3.org
>Subject: Re: W3C WS-Choreo WG - Issue 973
>
>
>* Martin Chapman wrote:
>>Well I can define an extension called "foo" and in the description of 
>>foo it could redefine the semantics of something in the cdl 
>namespace. 
>>For example "foo should be used instead of perform and its 
>behaviour is 
>>not to invoke the indicated choreography".  This would not be allowed 
>>as it contradicts the specs definition of perform.
>
>Okay, so, let's say I create a XML DSig extension where an 
>ds:Signature element is added as last child of 
>cdl:choreography. Implementations of this extension are 
>required to ignore the cdl:choreography element if the 
>Signature is not valid. This would seem to contradict the 
>semantics of the cdl:choreography element since 
>implementations are not allowed to ignore it under these 
>conditions. So making such a XML DSig extension is not 
>allowed. Correct?
>-- 
>Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · 
>http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · >Telefon: 
>+49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim 
>· PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
>
Received on Thursday, 4 August 2005 14:36:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:10 GMT