Re: NEW ISSUE: New Attribute keyword to identify 'local' policies #3721

I agree that these are two separate issues.


William

On Oct 4, 2006, at 2:30 AM, Beryozkin, Sergey wrote:

> Hi
>
> Reference to the thread[1] is misleading IMHO.
> I was stating from the start that a proposed wsp:local was nothing  
> to do with what is discussed in that thread. The semantics of  
> wsp:local are : mark assertions which *must be ignored* by a  
> requester. That is it, no more semantics...
>
> Thanks, Sergey
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Yalcinalp, Umit
> To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 11:44 PM
> Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE: New Attribute keyword to identify 'local'  
> policies #3721
>
>
> There has been a lot of discussion on Issues 3721 and 3564. I am  
> posting this response to this thread in order to illustrate why  
> there are two separate issues that need to be tackled  
> independently. However, they are NOT the same issue. Utilization of  
> optional assertions is a separate concern and those issues must not  
> be lumped together.
>
> Please find some comments in a different thread that explains why  
> there are two separate issues here for the details [1].
>
> Thanks,
>
> --umit
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Oct/ 
> 0016.html
>
> ----------------------
>
> Dr. Umit Yalcinalp
> Architect
> NetWeaver Industry Standards
> SAP Labs, LLC
> Email: umit.yalcinalp@sap.com Tel: (650) 320-3095
> SDN: https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/weblogs?blog=/pub/u/36238
> --------
> "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you,
> then they fight you, then you win." Gandhi
>
>