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

RE: New Issue: Policy framework should document extensibility points using {any} and @{any} in xpath-like expressions, and define these in Notational Conventions section

From: Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 08:16:04 -0700
Message-ID: <4DF3D07B9910264B9470DA1F811D1A950B261A2C@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>


> The remaining places may not be extensible by design

The extensibility points in the WS-Policy Framework [1] are:

wsp:Policy/{any}
wsp:ExactlyOne/{any}
wsp:All/{any}

wsp:Policy/@{any}
wsp:PolicyReference/@{any}

Per extensibility WS-Policy Extensibility model [2], if an EII is not
recognized, it should be treated as an assertion; if an AII is not
recognized, it should be ignored.

[1] See XML Schema for WS-Policy
[2]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-framework.h
tml?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#Extensibility 

Regards,
 
Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation


-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Orchard
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 4:27 PM
To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: New Issue: Policy framework should document extensibility
points using {any} and @{any} in xpath-like expressions, and define
these in Notational Conventions section


http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3590 

(content follows)

Policy framework defines a number of elements that have extensibility
points
for attributes and elements.  In a few places, such as were <assertion>s
can
occur, the extensibility point is documented.  

Every place where extensibility can occur, such extensibility should be
documented.  The places are:
/wsp:Policy/@{any}
/wsp:Policy/.../wsp:PolicyReference/@{any}
/wsp:Policy/.../wsp:PolicyReference/{any}
/wsp:Policy/wsp:ExactlyOne/@{any}
/wsp:Policy/wsp:ExactlyOne/wsp:All/@{any}

Note the first 2 cases have the elipses notation already in the pseudo
schema. 
The remaining places may not be extensibible by design.  

The description of attribute extensibility from attachments is
typically:
Additional attributes MAY be specified but MUST NOT contradict the
semantics of
the owner element; if an attribute is not recognized, it SHOULD be
ignored.

Though I do think the "ignoring" part is redundant with the
extensibility
processing model text.

I propose that:
1. the same notation conventions from the attachment document be
included in
framework
2. the agreed upon extensibility points are documented.

Cheers,
Dave
Received on Wednesday, 16 August 2006 15:16:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:40 GMT