W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > July 2005

RE: LC75f proposal

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:55:12 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A5082B20FB@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@opensource.lk>, "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I'm OK with the amendment too.  The only reason for waffling a little is
that it isn't testable.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@opensource.lk]
> Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 12:03 AM
> To: Yalcinalp, Umit
> Cc: Jonathan Marsh; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: 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 Monday, 11 July 2005 18:56:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:36 GMT