RE: Amended text and discussion of Issue 4393

> I am assuming for tomorrow, Glen, that this meets your 
> requirements and 
> mine in finding compromise text [1] to finalize Issue 4393.[2]

+1

--G

> 
> ========
> [1] See: 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0
> 041.html 
> (shown below as well).
> 
> > Glen Daniels wrote: "Regardless of the chosen intersection mode, 
> > ignorable assertions do not express any concrete 
> requirements on the 
> > behavior of consumers - in other words, a consumer is free 
> to ignore 
> > (hence the name "ignorable") any such assertions that end up in the 
> > resulting policy after interesection, with no adverse effects on 
> > runtime interactions."...
> 
> 
> monica: Glen I can live with this if we revise slightly to be more 
> succinct [1] and also maintain consistency with Section 2.7 [2]:
> 
>    [change from / Glen's] "Regardless of the chosen intersection mode,
>    ignorable assertions do not express any concrete 
> requirements on the
>    behavior of consumers - in other words, a consumer is free 
> to ignore
>    (hence the name "ignorable") any such assertions that end up in the
>    resulting policy after interesection, with no adverse effects on
>    runtime interactions."
> 
>    [change to / updated] "Regardless of the chosen intersection mode,
>    ignorable assertions do not express any wire-level requirements on
>    the behavior of consumers - in other words, a consumer could choose
>    to ignore any such assertions that end up in the resulting policy
>    after interesection, with no adverse effects on runtime 
> interactions."
> 
> [1] Note, I've deleted "hence..." emphasis as it really isn't 
> needed as 
> the first part of the sentence clearly states 'ignorable assertions'.
> [2] Note, Suggest we use 'wire-level' rather than 'concrete', 
> consistent 
> with Section 2.7 that states:
> 
>   "This behavior has no direct impact on the messages sent on 
> the wire, 
> and does not affect interoperability."
> 
> There may be other points you made in your email that I could be 
> addressed further separately. Thanks.
> 
> [2] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4393 (issue)
> last proposal (that is amended by the comments above) 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0036.html
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 14:45:48 UTC