- From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@progress.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:38:16 -0400
- To: "Daniel Roth" <Daniel.Roth@microsoft.com>, "Sergey Beryozkin" <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>, "Frederick Hirsch" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
- Cc: "Frederick Hirsch" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Hi Dan: > One of the conclusions of the WS-Policy interop workshop held > in Germany was that even if a policy expression contains an > unrecognized policy assertion tools can issue a warning and > ignore it. However, these warning are annoying and alarming > to customers, so implementers should avoid leaking out local > config assertions. This seems like a shockingly bad idea.... How could you possibly rely on the WSP framework to express requirements if you took this kind of position? And why do we even bother to have wsp:Optional if everything's "really" optional? I'm agog. Please tell me I misunderstood your comment here somehow and that you aren't really advocating this. Thanks, --Glen
Received on Wednesday, 11 October 2006 14:40:40 UTC