W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > March 2004

Re: Proposed Resolution for Issue 135

From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:31:43 -0500
To: Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-id: <20040310143143.347399a7.alewis@tibco.com>

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:09:41 -0800
Umit Yalcinalp <umit.yalcinalp@oracle.com> wrote:
> Yaron Y. Goland wrote:
> 
> > In writing a specification one tries to strike a balance between 
> > readability and reference-ability. WSDL 2.0 has done a good job in 
> > striking this balance by adopting a structure for section 2 where
> > the functional behaviors are described in sections 2.x.1 and
> > infoset/xml information is presented in sections 2.x.2 and 2.x.3.
> 
> In principle, I understand what you are trying to accomplish and I am 
> all for increasing readability. However,  I fear that the
> restructuring you propose will require one to access the Appendix for
> each component definition we define to see how it is formally
> specified. As a reader, I don't like to look at multiple places to
> understand the meaning and the normative definition of something and
> your proposal is going to require the readers to do exactly that.
> 
> Therefore: -1.

Well expressed.  I fear that the proposed simplification in fact
increases complexity for implementors.  If a casual narrative is needed
for WSDL instance authors and users, then I think it belongs outside the
core, normative, carefully-written (even pedantic) specification, and I
do *not* believe that the careful language of the core belongs in an
appendix.

Therefore, another -1.

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect/Principal Engineer
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Wednesday, 10 March 2004 14:33:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:30 GMT