- From: David Illsley <david.illsley@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 17:27:59 +0000
- To: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
- Cc: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> * The NOTE in section 3.2.3 after the first paragraph that if both > anonymous and non anonymous responses are supported there should > be a separate alternative including only anonymous responses > consists of one long sentence with no punctuation making it fairly > hard to parse but also lending it a certain Joycean quality which > is to be commended. I thank you for the commendation, I am rather proud ;-) However, having been someone who has spend much time trying to parse such sentences in other specs, I'd agree with a re-write. How about: NOTE: If both AnonymousResponses and NonAnonymousResponses are supported, and the intention is to allow either to be used, care should be taken to ensure there are alternatives such that a subject which supports only one will have a compatible policy [WS Policy 1.5 - Primer section 3.4]. There should be at least an alternative which includes just AnonymousResponses as a nested assertion and an alternative with just NonAnonymousResponses as a nested assertion David
Received on Monday, 8 January 2007 17:28:33 UTC