- From: Sergey Beryozkin <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:50:07 +0100
- To: "Frederick Hirsch" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
- Cc: "Hirsch Frederick" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Hi Frederick well, I regret that after all those messages wsp:local is still considered as something which is not "provider-only". > Unlike "local" and "advisory" this does not attempt to imply how a client should behave knowing this information. Can you clarify what do you mean here please ? What does it imply ? Does it imply that "provider-only" assertions are removed as Ashok said ? Anything else ? Thanks, Sergey > > I think I agree with what Umit said during the call, perhaps we should flag assertions that only apply to the provider, perhaps > with a "provider-only" attribute. This is declarative of the fact that this assertion has no wire impact and only states that > the assertion applies to the provider. Unlike "local" and "advisory" this does not attempt to imply how a client should behave > knowing this information. > > In other words treat optionality and provider-only as orthogonal (especially since optionality is about policy alternatives). > > regards, Frederick > > Frederick Hirsch > Nokia > > >
Received on Thursday, 26 October 2006 08:49:51 UTC