RE: LC101/LC104 - proposed text

+1 except -1 for bloating the pseudo-schema.

Nowhere else in this spec, or in the WSDL 2.0 spec, are extension points
called out in the pseudo-schema.  I believe this was intentional, as the
purpose of the pseudo-schema is to provide quick reference to the
required constructs.  Enumeration of the extensibility points is
adequately documented in the prose and in the real schema, and I think
that's sufficient.  In fact, the pseudo-schema notation doesn't even
support wildcards and we'd have to augment it to provide them.

I don't think leaving the pseudo-schema alone weakens your fine proposal
at all.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Glen Daniels
> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 8:52 AM
> To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: LC101/LC104 - proposed text
> 
> 
> 
> Hi folks:
> 
> Here's an amended proposal for LC101/104.  Replace first sentence in
> section 2.1 with:
> 
> ---
> An endpoint reference is a collection of abstract properties.  This
> specification defines a core set of properties, but it is also
possible
> for other specifications to extend these with other properties.  The
> semantics and XML Infoset representation (see next section) for any
such
> extension properties will be described in their defining
specifications.
> 
> The core properties are as follows:
> ---
> 
> With regard to the XML infoset section, I notice that we're missing
> pseudo-schema for the {any} element and the @{any} attribute - I think
> we should add that.  Then, after the last
> "/wsa:EndpointReference/@{any}" definition and before the example, we
> should add:
> 
> ---
> NOTE: Specifications which describe any extension elements or
attributes
> used to augment the above model will explain any effects those
> extensions may have on the abstract properties.  They may affect
either
> the core properties or extension properties as defined in section 2.1.
> ---
> 
> I think this gets across what we discussed on Monday.
> 
> Thanks,
> --Glen

Received on Friday, 15 July 2005 19:30:48 UTC