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

Re: ISSUE 3564: Optional Assertions may not be usable in all cir cumstances

From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:02:22 -0400
Message-Id: <92D12481-F534-47AE-B0E3-B6D1E46E14D1@nokia.com>
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
To: "ext Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@progress.com>

No, because it is meaningless to "ignore" an assertion that is always  
applied by the provider, even if it is advisory to the client. In  
other words, it is not ignored in associated impact, even if client  
chooses to treat as advisory and "ignore" it.

-- non-wire assertion states something will be done (e.g. logging) -  
this happens, so is not optional.
-- client views this as advisory, so ignores in making request, but  
this is not the same as assertion being ignored in entire process.

The issue here is that optional has a much different meaning than  
advisory.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia


On Sep 27, 2006, at 12:45 PM, ext Glen Daniels wrote:

>
> Hi Frederick:
>
>> It is difficult to combine the concept of optional with its
>> normalization implications with flagging items that can be ignored
>> without implication of actual impact.
>
> Why is that?  Optional means that there is both an acceptable
> alternative without this assertion, and one with this assertion.   
> Isn't
> that the same thing as saying that the item can be ignored at the whim
> of the consumer?
>
> This seems true regardless of whether the given assertion has an
> "impact" vis. the wire messages.
>
> --Glen
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 27 September 2006 17:03:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:41 GMT