W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy-qa@w3.org > July 2007

[Bug 4695] Editorial Comments on Guidelines

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:27:58 +0000
To: public-ws-policy-qa@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1IBBRW-0007ro-Ef@wiggum.w3.org>


chrisfer@us.ibm.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED

------- Comment #2 from chrisfer@us.ibm.com  2007-07-18 15:27 -------

[11:10] cferris: 1.  disregard the changes in the first section
[11:10] cferris: 2. accept change to add "qualifying" in section 5.4
[11:10] cferris: 3. 5.4.1 s/normalize/normalization/
[11:10] cferris: 4. disregard other changes as they modify proposed changes
that were not accepted
[11:11] dmoberg: cferris: misc. profanities over misbehavin mouse
[11:15] cferris: 5. comment 2 in the bug no action
[11:21] cferris: 6. replace 5.4 with the following:
[11:21] cferris: There are two different ways to provide additional information
in an assertion beyond its type: assertion parameters and nested policy
expressions. We cover these two cases below followed by a comparison of these
approaches targeting when to use either of the two approaches. 

 The main consideration for choosing between use of parameters or nested policy
expressions is that the framework intersection algorithm processes nested
policy expressions, but does not consider parameters in the algorithm.
[11:22] cferris: ... and remove the paragraph starting with "The main
consideration" from later in section 5.4.2
[11:24] cferris: 7. s/ useful (or additional)/useful additive/ in BP 12

RESOLUTION: close issue 4695 with the above 7 changes
See http://www.w3.org/2007/07/18-ws-policy-irc#T15-27-02
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2007 15:28:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:02:10 UTC