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

Issue 3564 (was RE: Assertion guidelines new version

From: Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 09:05:41 -0800
Message-ID: <1E0F0378382054439F14D5450650478F0B0D19F6@RED-MSG-42.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
We have reviewed the guidelines in Section 5.5 'Policy Assertions
Designating Optional Behaviors'. Looks good. Thank you for the revised
proposal. We request the WG to accept the proposed guidelines and close
issue 3564.

 

Regards,

 

Asir S Vedamuthu

Microsoft Corporation

 

 

From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yalcinalp, Umit
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 7:08 PM
To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: Assertion guidelines new version

 

 

Folks, 

There is a new version of the document [1] : 

-- Paul, your comments are incorporated 

-- Frederick, your comments with two exceptions are incorporated 

    (a) did not include any guidance about intermediateries as it should
be an item that requires a proposal that I was not sure how to write.
Should be tracked as a separate issue. Would you care to raise the
issue? 

    (b) pretty printing. Last time I used it, you still sent me an
indication that you did not like the result. I am still waiting guidance
from our helpful editorial team as to which tool they use for this issue
so that there is some coherence to the other specs :-) 

-- Assertions that target optional behaviors. 
    I incorporated the discussion we had from last week, Yakov's and
Dan's feedback with one exception. Dan, I did not exclude the bullet you
wanted excluded because the content is not incorrect except WSRMP
related guidance. I agree that it is a general discussion but given why
the optionality is a problem, I thought it would be clearer to call out
scoping considerations. In order to accommodate the scoping,  I
encapsulated all the scoping considerations for message policy subject,
one-way attachment, etc. under a dedicated bullet for clarity. I also
changed the guidance though to fit with what WS-RMP spec. You were right
to indicate that the previous guidance was not accurate, so I do hope
you like this approach. Have a look. 

This completes my unrecorded by assumed action items from last weeks
concall as the direction given by the wg seemed to indicate that the wg
needed to see the editorial items + optional assertion proposal
addressed before tomorrows concall.  I did not see this explicitly
recorded though in the minutes though. 

--umit 

[1]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-guidelines.
html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-guidelines
.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8> 

 

---------------------- 

Dr. Umit Yalcinalp 
Architect 
NetWeaver Industry Standards 
SAP Labs, LLC 
Email: umit.yalcinalp@sap.com Tel: (650) 320-3095 
SDN: https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/weblogs?blog=/pub/u/36238
<https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/weblogs?blog=/pub/u/36238>  
-------- 
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, 
then they fight you, then you win." Gandhi 
Received on Wednesday, 1 November 2006 17:07:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:43 GMT