RE: Suggested editorial changes to adjuncts section 4.1.1 wrpc:signature

Thanks for your comment.  The WS Description Working Group tracked this
issue as a CR073 [1].

 

The Working Group accepted your proposal, with some changes to #4 which we
believe were typos on your part.  The change is reflected in the latest
editor’s draft [2].

 

Unless you let us know otherwise by the end of October, we will assume you
agree with the resolution of this issue.

 

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR073 

[2]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.html
?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#InterfaceOperation_RPC_Signature_De
finition

 

Jonathan Marsh -  <http://www.wso2.com> http://www.wso2.com -
<http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com> http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com

 

  _____  

From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Lawrence Mandel
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 12:17 PM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Suggested editorial changes to adjuncts section 4.1.1
wrpc:signature

 


Section 4.1.1 of the WSDL adjuncts document contains some complex
assertions. (Assertions that have two assertion statements or are difficult
to understand.) I'd like to propose some changes. Note that I don't think
any of my proposed changes change the meaning of the specification. The
changes are simply editorial/formatting changes that should make it easier
to understand the assertions and, for implementations and the test suite,
easier to identify when an assertion has been violated. I've attached a
patch for wsdl20-adjuncts.xml that contains these changes. 


1. "For each child element of the input and output messages of the
operation, a pair (q, t) whose first component q is equal to the qualified
name of that element MUST be present in the list, with the caveat that
elements that appear with cardinality greater than one MUST be treated as a
single element.
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts
.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#WRPC-5022-summary> † " 

I'd like to suggest a simple grammatical correction to make this more
readable. 

For each child element of the input and output messages of the operation, a
pair (q, t), whose first component q is equal to the qualified name of that
element, MUST be present in the list, with the caveat that elements that
appear with cardinality greater than one MUST be treated as a single
element.
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts
.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#WRPC-5022-summary> † 


2. "For each pair (q, #in), there MUST be a child element of the input
element with a name of q and there MUST NOT be a child element of the output
element with the same name.
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts
.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#WRPC-5023-summary> †" 

For each pair (q, #in), there MUST be a child element of the input element
with a name of q. 
For each pair (q, #in), there MUST NOT be a child element of the output
element with the name q.
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts
.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#WRPC-5023-summary>  


3. "For each pair (q, #out), there MUST be a child element of the output
element with a name of q and there MUST NOT be a child element of the input
element with the same name.
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts
.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#WRPC-5024-summary> †" 

For each pair (q, #out), there MUST be a child element of the output element
with a name of q. 
For each pair (q, #out), there MUST NOT be a child element of the input
element with the name q. 


 
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts
.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#WRPC-5024-summary> 4. "For
each pair (q, #inout), there MUST be a child element of the input element
with a name of q and there MUST be a child element of the output element
with the same name. Furthermore, those two elements MUST have the same type.
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts
.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#WRPC-5025-summary> †" 

For each pair (q, #inout), there MUST be a child element of the input
element with a name of q and there MUST be a child element of the output
element with the same name. 

In this case I'd like to drop the "Furthermore, those two elements MUST have
the same type." as this is redundant with assertion RPCStyle-5018. If it's
felt that this should be kept I think the statement should be removed from
the assertion and preferably rephrased to remove the MUST keyword that
indicates an assertion. (I think it's potentially dangerous for the spec to
define the same assertion twice.) 


5. "For each pair (q, #return), there MUST be a child element of the output
element with a name of q and there MUST NOT be a child element of the input
element with the same name.
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts
.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#WRPC-5026-summary> † " 

For each pair (q, #return), there MUST be a child element of the output
element with a name of q. 
For each pair (Q, #return), there MUST NOT be a child element of the input
element with the name q. 


Thanks, 

Lawrence Mandel

Software Developer
IBM Rational Software
Phone: 905 - 413 - 3814   Fax: 905 - 413 - 4920
lmandel@ca.ibm.com