- From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:47:29 -0500
- To: "ext Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
- Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Monica why is the following sentence in the proposal needed? "Where a behavior is not engaged, the absence of policy expressions does not indicate anything about the capabilities and requirements of a service." Doesn't the previous sentence in the proposal (shown below here) make the point regarding the absence of a policy assertion? "When a policy assertion is absent, a policy aware client should not conclude anything (other than ‘no claims’) about the absence of that policy assertion. " regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Feb 6, 2007, at 7:41 PM, ext Monica J. Martin wrote: > Updated proposal 6 February 2007 for Issue 4288 and to close Action > 217. Combined proposal from MaryAnn Hondo, Fabian Ritzmann and > Monica J. Martin. > Reference: Primer, > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy- > primer.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8 > Action Item 217: http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicy/ > actions/217 > Issue: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4288 > > See attached the proposed changes to the Primer document > [referenced above] with redlines/tracked changes shown. The changes > are captured in either .htm or .pdf in a .zip (renamed to .zzz). > Please change the .zzz suffix to .zip to open. > > Thank you.* <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4288>* > <ws-policy-issue4288-action217-update-020607.zzz>
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2007 15:47:47 UTC