Re: Markup for testable assertions

+1 to Amy's approach. However, I'd go for a simplified markup; the 
proposed one is just too cumbersome to type.

What about instead:
   <must>...</must>
   <should>...</should>
   <may>...</may>
   <mustn>...</mustn>
   <shouldn>...</shouldn>
   <mayn>...</mayn>
?

JJ

Amelia A. Lewis wrote:
> Can the xmlspec DTD be enhanced, either experimentally or locally to
> WSD, to include a <testable> or <assertion> element?
> 
> This would, of course, also require a modification of the xmlspec.xsl
> stylesheet to handle the assertions.
> 
> My preference would be that the testable assertions appear in the
> document itself, and that they be marked as testable assertions.  I
> would then like to see the stylesheet automatically generate an appendix
> on conformance, which would extract the 'tags' (an email message MUST
> have lines of no more than 998 characters plus CR and LF) and generate a
> hyperlink to the assertion in context.
> 
> More below ...
> 
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:29:40 -0800
> "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>This mail is intended to start a discussion about testable assertions
>>and associated markup in our spec. Here are some thoughts/questions:
>>
>>1.	Would it be better to have a section in the spec with all the
>>assertions in. And reference those assertions from their 'location' in
>>the spec itself? Or would it be better to 'sprinkle' the assertions
>>throughout the spec?
> 
> 
> Sprinkle.  Consolidate in appendix.
> 
> 
>>2.	Do we want the assertions to appear in the spec itself or is
>>there a separate stylesheet which emits the assertions?
> 
> 
> Assertions SHOULD be part of the normative text.  The stylesheet SHOULD
> generate an appendix which consolidates all of the assertions into one
> easily referenced section.
> 
> 
>>3.	Do we want 'classes' of assertion? Seems like whereever we have
>>things like MUST/SHOULD/MAY then we have an assertion. Seems also we
>>would want to capture the distinction in the markup.
> 
> 
> Seems like a good idea.
> 
> 
>>4.	Some assertions are captured in the schema. For example the fact
>>that wsdl:import and wsdl:include must appear before wsdl:types
> 
> 
> This is also in the text, is it not?  In fact, the text is far clearer
> on the subject of required sequence, I believe.
> 
> 
>>5.	Some assertions are captured in the schema for the 'single WSDL'
>>case but not in the 'multiple WSDL' case. For example, the uniqueness
>>constraint on the local name of port types is enforced by the schema,
>>but in the face of wsdl:include you could end up with a collision,
>>which would be an error.
> 
> 
> But the assertion appears in normative text as well, does it not?
> 
> Amy!

Received on Friday, 28 March 2003 04:23:29 UTC