W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy@w3.org > April 2007

RE: Are nested assertions part of the policy vocabulary?

From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@progress.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:53:35 -0400
Message-ID: <80A43FC052CE3949A327527DCD5D6B27023728B3@MAIL01.bedford.progress.com>
To: "Maryann Hondo" <mhondo@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>, <public-ws-policy-request@w3.org>

Hi Maryann:

> I think the problem is that the assertions are really trying 
> to express a constraint .....and should be something 
> like "nonAnonymousONLY".  so the absence, is not the absence 
> of support but rather the absence of the constraint. 

OK, I think I see your interpretation here - this is very tricky stuff.
:)  As I understand it you're saying that it's OK to select the "empty"
version in the case where the provider doesn't specify a constraint
assertion (anon/non-anon), and that doing so simply means no constraint
exists at runtime.

Do you think we need to have WSA amend their spec in order to make this
more clear?

> I hope we can talk this through on the call. 


Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2007 14:54:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:38:33 UTC