- From: Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:53:27 -0700
- To: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
- CC: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, ext Prasad Yendluri <prasad.yendluri@webmethods.com>, public-ws-policy-eds <public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org>
Are you proposing any substantial changes to Section 5.5 (old 4.5)? Regards, Asir S Vedamuthu Microsoft Corporation -----Original Message----- From: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frederick Hirsch Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 9:45 PM To: Paul Cotton Cc: Frederick Hirsch; ext Prasad Yendluri; public-ws-policy-eds Subject: Re: [Guidelines] Proposed update to section 4.5 (now 5.5), Design ating Optional Behaviors We discussed this on the editors call and I think we agreed, in keeping with the way we've resolved previous issues, that WG should agree on changes that are more extensive. This is what we've been doing to date, even agreeing on detailed wording in the WG. If we do not see any WG comments then we can go ahead and make these changes without WG approval if you think that is best. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Apr 17, 2007, at 8:50 PM, ext Paul Cotton wrote: > Personally I think this would be better discussed by the Editors > until you have a consolidated position to take back to the WG. In > fact I thought that is what the Editors agreed to do. > > /paulc > > ________________________________________ > From: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org [public-ws-policy-eds- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frederick Hirsch > [frederick.hirsch@nokia.com] > Sent: April 17, 2007 3:40 PM > To: ext Prasad Yendluri > Cc: Frederick Hirsch; public-ws-policy-eds > Subject: Re: [Guidelines] Proposed update to section 4.5 (now 5.5), > Design ating Optional Behaviors > > no problem, open discussion on this is fine. I'll respond on the WG > thread. > > regards, Frederick > > Frederick Hirsch > Nokia > > > On Apr 17, 2007, at 5:50 PM, ext Prasad Yendluri wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> >> >> My apologies, I did not intend to send my reply to the whole WG. >> >> Somehow I thought we were discussing this within just the editorial >> team. >> >> Did not realize Frederick's note was sent to the WG list. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Prasad >> >> >> >> From: Prasad Yendluri >> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 2:07 PM >> To: 'Frederick Hirsch'; public-ws-policy@w3.org >> Subject: RE: [Guidelines] Proposed update to section 4.5 (now 5.5), >> Designating Optional Behaviors >> >> >> >> Hi Frederick, >> >> >> >> Couple of quick comments. >> >> >> >> 1. Good practice (b) and (d) seem to have the same good practice >> description. >> >> That is lines 28-29 and 62-63 are identical (ref: .pdf w/o diff). >> >> >> >> 2. Some of these best practices could be applicable on a broader >> scope rather than just >> >> "optional assertions". For example, the following best practice w/o >> optional could be >> >> applicable to WSDL attachment (described in the section that >> follows this one). >> >> >> >> "Assertion Authors should associate optional assertions with the >> appropriate endpoint, >> >> and right granularity to limit the degree to which optionality >> applies." >> >> >> >> Is it worth rephrasing these to be more generic so that they can >> also be applicable >> >> elsewhere rather than scoping them strictly to optional assertions? >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Prasad >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy- >> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frederick Hirsch >> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 8:20 AM >> To: public-ws-policy@w3.org >> Cc: Frederick Hirsch >> Subject: [Guidelines] Proposed update to section 4.5 (now 5.5), >> Designating Optional Behaviors >> >> >> >> I took an editors action item to revise section 4.5 of the Guidelines >> >> (designating optional behaviors) to reflect the approach taken in the >> >> Web architecture document, to re-structure as problem statement, best >> >> practices and then example. [1] >> >> >> >> This resulted in a fairly extensive edit so I am sharing the revision >> >> with the WG before completing the edits. I added some best practices >> >> based on the original text. >> >> >> >> Attached are plain and red-lines, with revised section numbers due to >> >> a subsequent change to the documents to add summary section of best >> >> practices at the beginning of the document. (Will probably need to >> >> add informative reference to MTOM assertion) >> >> >> >> regards, Frederick >> >> >> >> Frederick Hirsch >> >> Nokia >> >> >> >> [1] <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy- >> >> guidelines.html?rev=1.38&content-type=text/html;% >> >> 20charset=iso-8859-1#optional-policy-assertion> >> >> >> >> >> >>
Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:53:52 UTC