RE: LC75f proposal

Looks good to me too .. with or without the friendly amendment.

Sanjiva.

On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 15:56 -0700, Yalcinalp, Umit wrote:
> I like the proposal. I have a friendly amendement below, which is
> somewhat stronger. (with a lowercase "must")
> 
> --umit
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> > Sent: Friday, Jul 08, 2005 1:23 PM
> > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: LC75f proposal
> > 
> > 
> > I have an action to craft a proposal that addresses the need to allow
> > infrastructure attributes on elements using the RPC style.
> > 
> > The bullet in question (Adjuncts 4.1) reads:
> > 
> >   The complex type that defines the body of an input or an output
> > element MUST NOT
> >   contain any attributes.
> > 
> > I propose this become:
> > 
> >   The complex type that defines the body of an input or an output
> > element MUST NOT
> >   contain any local attributes.  Extension attributes are allowed for
> > purposes of
> >   managing the message infrastructure (e.g. adding identifiers to
> > facilitate digital 
> >   signatures).  They are not intended to be part of the 
> > application data
> > conveyed by 
> >   the message.  Note that these attributes are not considered when
> > describing a
> >   signature using wrpc:signature.
> 
> How about: 
> 
> These attributes must not be considered as part of the application data
> that is conveyed by the message. Therefore, they are not included in the
> description of a signature by using wrpc:signature. 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 10 July 2005 07:04:18 UTC