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

Re: optionality and provider-only orthogonal

From: Sergey Beryozkin <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:50:07 +0100
Message-ID: <028b01c6f8db$bc94c330$3901020a@sberyoz>
To: "Frederick Hirsch" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Cc: "Hirsch Frederick" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>

Hi Frederick

well, I regret that after all those messages wsp:local is still considered as something which is not
"provider-only".

> Unlike "local" and "advisory" this does not  attempt to imply how a client should behave knowing this information.

Can you clarify what do you mean here please ? What does it imply ? Does it imply that "provider-only" assertions are removed as 
Ashok said ? Anything else ?

Thanks, Sergey

>
> I think I agree with what Umit said during the call, perhaps we  should flag assertions that only apply to the provider, perhaps 
> with  a "provider-only" attribute.  This is declarative of the fact that  this assertion has no wire impact and only states that 
> the assertion  applies to the provider. Unlike "local" and "advisory" this does not  attempt to imply how a client should behave 
> knowing this information.
>
> In other words treat optionality and provider-only as orthogonal  (especially since optionality is about policy alternatives).
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
>
>
> 
Received on Thursday, 26 October 2006 08:49:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:42 GMT