- From: Gary Brown <gary@pi4tech.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 14:17:06 +0100
- To: "Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, "'WS-Choreography List'" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
I think the current wording is fair, because we don't want a situation where a particular choreography element behaves differently in two implementations, simply on the basis of whether an optional extension is supported by one of the implementations. In the example given below, this information (digital signature) is simply another factor that can be taken into account to determine whether a choreography is valid. However, how the particular implementation chooses to use that information (i.e. don't permit the choreography description to be used) is implementation specific, and should not affect the semantics of an individual element in that description. I think preserving the semantics of the core elements is fundamental to ensuring inter-operability. Regards Gary ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com> To: "'WS-Choreography List'" <public-ws-chor@w3.org> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 2:01 PM Subject: 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 13:17:16 UTC