W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-poe-archives@w3.org > October 2017

Re: [poe] Harmonise how a Duty with consequences should be evaluated

From: Michael Steidl via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 06:59:06 +0000
To: public-poe-archives@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-334376265-1507186732-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
As I recall from the discussion at a call it was avoiding infinitely nested consequences, and that makes sense. (We at IPTC had such nested structures and implementers told us: "this does now work in a reliable way in practice". Since then we avoid that.)
Further this excludes cyclic dependencies as a Duty having consequences cannot be reused as one of its consequences.

To clarify this regarding my suggest wording of the consequence definition above: the re-expression of the "original Duty" as a consequence may require a few modifications: a) should the constraints be applied (again) (see #275), b) no consequences. See an example of that in https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/275#issuecomment-333751962

GitHub Notification of comment by nitmws
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/267#issuecomment-334376265 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 5 October 2017 06:58:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:47:03 UTC