Re: LC101/LC104 - proposed text

Jonathan,

Leaving out everything is acceptable but showing just one extensibility 
point as it does now would be confusing.
To avoid that I believe we had resolved LC issue that raised this 
originally 
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-comments/2005Apr/0002.html) 
by agreeing to remove the <xs:Any/>* entry in the end in table / listing 
2-1. That change is yet to be reflected in the spec though.

Regards,
Prasad

Jonathan Marsh wrote:

>+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
>>    
>>
>
>  
>