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

Re: NEW ISSUE: [GUIDELINES] Use of @wsp:optional and @wsp:Ignorab le o n the same assertion

From: Sergey Beryozkin <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:01:02 -0000
Message-ID: <01c501c743c7$0e9fb910$c301020a@sberyoz>
To: "Prasad Yendluri" <prasad.yendluri@webmethods.com>, "Henry, William" <William.Henry@iona.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Re: NEW ISSUE: [GUIDELINES] Use of @wsp:optional and @wsp:Ignorable o n the same assertionHi

It's difficult not to start thinking that a strict mode is not working as expected. As far as I understand, one of the goals of the strict mode is to ensure that ignorable assertions will cause the intersection to fail unless the consumer explicitly recognizes them. That is, a consumer wishes to fail if it encounters unknown assertions which are ignorable for the intersection purposes, for ex, a consumer does not wish this assertion to go unnoticed :
<foo:logging wsp:ignorable="true"/>
<foo:makeYourDataAvailable wsp:ignorable="true"/>
Still, a producer can just mark assertions like these ones as wsp:optional and bypass the strict mode, as optionality possesses the 'ignorability' property unless some further restrictions are introduced


Cheers, Sergey


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Prasad Yendluri 
  To: Henry, William ; Prasad Yendluri ; public-ws-policy@w3.org 
  Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 10:23 PM
  Subject: RE: NEW ISSUE: [GUIDELINES] Use of @wsp:optional and @wsp:Ignorab le o n the same assertion


  wsp:Optional is just a syntactic sugar, for two alternatives one with the assertion and one without.

  If an assertion say "A" also had wsp:Ignorable=true, then one alternative would have the assertion A with @wsp:Ignorable=true and other where the assertion A would not be present. This is what we discussed at the Burlington f2f IIRC. What is the use case that would preclude the use of both on the same assertion? If we find one, then this issue becomes a LC issue on the Framework document.

   

  Regards,

  Prasad

   


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

  From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Henry, William
  Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 2:14 PM
  To: prasad.yendluri@webMethods.com; public-ws-policy@w3.org
  Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE: [GUIDELINES] Use of @wsp:optional and @wsp:Ignorable o n the same assertion

   

  Is this really the case? I'm not sure the intent was ever to have both these in that same assertion. Was it?

  I'd have thought the guidelines should have shown that these were for two different types of use case.  Can some explain the use case that was dreamed up where the make sense together?


  William


  William Henry
  Enterprise Architect, Director
  IONA Technologies Inc.
  william.henry@iona.com

  -----Original Message-----
  From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org <public-ws-policy-request@w3.org>
  To: public-ws-policy@w3.org <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
  Sent: Thu Jan 18 17:05:29 2007
  Subject: NEW ISSUE: [GUIDELINES] Use of @wsp:optional and @wsp:Ignorable o      n the same assertion

  http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4262



  Title: Provide clear guidance on the specification of @wsp:optional=true and @wsp:Ignorable=true on the same assertion



  Target:  Guidelines Document



  Description:

  The framework specification does not explicitly state if an assertion can be marked both optional and ignorable. However, as we discussed since @wsp:optional is just a syntactic simplification, it is permitted to mark an assertion with both the @wsp:optional and @wsp:Ignorable with the value of "true" for both.



  I ask that the guidelines document add some guidance to clarify this aspect.



  Justification: No clarify in this aspect anywhere else



  Proposal: Add a text to the guidelines document to clarify that both the attributes wsp:optional and wsp:Ignorable with the value of "true" for both, can be specified on the same assertion



  Regards,

  Prasad
Received on Monday, 29 January 2007 16:59:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:45 GMT