FW: W3C WS-Choreo WG - Issue 973

any views on this?

My own take is that we don’t really define parsing semantics only
endpoint/execution semnatics, but 
I do sort of see the point given the current language.

Martin.


-----Original Message-----
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann [mailto:derhoermi@gmx.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 9:09 PM
To: Martin Chapman
Cc: public-ws-chor-comments@w3.org
Subject: Re: W3C WS-Choreo WG - Issue 973


* Martin Chapman wrote:
>Well I can define an extension called "foo" and in the description of 
>foo it could redefine the semantics of something in the cdl namespace. 
>For example "foo should be used instead of perform and its behaviour is

>not to invoke the indicated choreography".  This would not be allowed 
>as it contradicts the specs definition of perform.

Okay, so, let's say I create a XML DSig extension where an ds:Signature
element is added as last child of cdl:choreography. Implementations of
this extension are required to ignore the cdl:choreography element if
the Signature is not valid. This would seem to contradict the semantics
of the cdl:choreography element since implementations are not allowed to
ignore it under these conditions. So making such a XML DSig extension is
not allowed. Correct?
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Thursday, 4 August 2005 13:00:50 UTC