RE: Issue i009 - Multiple actions. Proposal

Mark,

I don't know. I think the spec is clear 'as-is', but in discussing issue
i009 it was clear some people wanted some extra wording. I got an action
(no pun intended) to draft some text.

Gudge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com] 
> Sent: 20 January 2005 12:25
> To: Martin Gudgin; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue i009 - Multiple actions. Proposal
> 
> Why's this text needed if the spec (and associated schema) 
> say it has a
> cardinality of exactly 1?
> 
> Mark.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
> To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 9:43 AM
> Subject: Issue i009 - Multiple actions. Proposal
> 
> 
> >
> > I had an action to make a proposal for closing issue i009 - Multiple
> > actions. The general feeling in the room at the 
> face-to-face seemed to
> > be that sticking with one action (possibly per actor/role 
> depending on
> > how we close issue i007) was fine, but we needed to call 
> this out in the
> > spec and point out that layered specifications need to take 
> this into
> > account. Here is the proposal:
> >
> > Add the following sentence to the description of the 
> [action] property
> > in section 3 of the core spec.
> >
> > Protocol and application designers building on this
> > specification are encouraged to take care when designing 
> their protocols
> > or applications that they do not violate the requirement that there
> > be exactly one [action] property.
> >
> > Flames, comments, suggestions to the usual address.
> >
> > Gudge
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 20 January 2005 12:48:05 UTC