W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy-qa@w3.org > September 2006

[Bug 3602] The absence of an assertion should not mean that the behavior is "explicitly prohibited"

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 23:56:22 +0000
CC:
To: public-ws-policy-qa@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1GO14A-0005yw-2K@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3602





------- Comment #3 from monica.martin@sun.com  2006-09-14 23:56 -------
Subsequent simplified proposal provided by Fabian Ritzmann and Monica Martin on
14 September 2006:

[start]
><new text>
>For example, if there is a policy with an assertion marked with "optional='true'" this puts the assertion in the vocabulary of the policy.  When this policy is normalized the assertion appears in one alternative and not in the other.  If the alternative that does not include the assertion is chosen then it is explicitly prohibited to apply the assertion as the assertion is part of the policy vocabulary.
>  
mm1: Ashok, where this text falls in the specification, it is premature 
to discuss wsp:Optional, normalization and XML representation. In 
addition, this text duplicates existing material.  We could revise the 
existing text in Section 3.2:

    Change from: An assertion whose type is part of the policy's
    vocabulary but is not included in an alternative is explicitly
    prohibited by the alternative.
    Change to: When an assertion whose type is part of the policy
    vocabulary but is not included in a policy alternative, the provider
    does not apply that policy assertion in that policy alternative.

An option to consider rather than another example is to reference 
further sections and include more detail in the Guideline and/or Primer 
documents. Thanks.
[end]

See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0098.html
Received on Thursday, 14 September 2006 23:56:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:08 GMT