- From: Sergey Beryozkin <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:55:26 -0000
- To: "Daniel Roth" <Daniel.Roth@microsoft.com>, "Prasad Yendluri" <prasad.yendluri@webmethods.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
- Cc: "Asir Vedamuthu" <asirveda@microsoft.com>, <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>, <Fabian.Ritzmann@Sun.COM>
- Message-ID: <010101c76659$905e9a70$c301020a@sberyoz>
Hi """The WS-Policy Framework allows a policy assertion to be marked with both "optional" and "Ignorable" simultaneously. The presence of "@wsp:optional=true" on an assertion is a syntactic compact form for two alternatives, one with the assertion and the other without the assertion. Hence syntactically marking an assertion "A" with both the @wsp:Optional and @wsp:Ignorable with the value of "true" for both, is equivalent to two alternatives; one where the assertion A exists with @wsp:Ignorable=true and the second where the assertion A does not exist.""" This contradicts to the primer recommendations where it's recommended that wsp:optional is only used to mark the assertions which the consumer will have to do something about and where it's recommended not to mark such assertions as wsp:ignorable. The proposed text will simply send the confusing message. > "@wsp:optional=true" on an assertion is a syntactic compact form I fully agree. But the group by adopting wsp:ignorable made a clear statement that it's not a syntactic sugar. Otherwise there's no need for wsp:ignorable. I propose to either prohibit this combination or to update the compact-to-normal form conversion algorithm to put wsp:ignorable assertions into both alternatives due to the fact wsp:optional implies ignorability but wsp:ignorable does not imply optionality as per the spec Cheers, Sergey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Roth" <Daniel.Roth@microsoft.com> To: "Prasad Yendluri" <prasad.yendluri@webmethods.com>; <public-ws-policy@w3.org> Cc: "Asir Vedamuthu" <asirveda@microsoft.com>; <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>; <Fabian.Ritzmann@Sun.COM> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 3:38 AM Subject: RE: Issue 4262 - Use of wsp:Optional and wsp:Ingorable together - Pro posed Resolution +1 Daniel Roth -----Original Message----- From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:prasad.yendluri@webmethods.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 7:34 PM To: public-ws-policy@w3.org Cc: Asir Vedamuthu; Monica.Martin@Sun.COM; Daniel Roth; Fabian.Ritzmann@Sun.COM Subject: Issue 4262 - Use of wsp:Optional and wsp:Ingorable together - Pro posed Resolution Folks, Monica, Asir, Dan, Fabian and I agreed to propose the following as the resolution for this issue http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4262. 1. We now think this issue is actually on the Primer rather than the Guidelines document, as it is related to composition of a policy expression (that uses optional and ignorable flags on assertions) rather than design of assertions. 2. We propose adding the following as a new subsection that follows the description of the Optional Assertions (section 2.6) and Ignorable Expressions (Section 2.7), in the Primer. Updated proposal: "2.8 Marking Assertions both Optional and Ignorable As described in the sections above and in Section 3.4.1, WS-Policy 1.5 specification defines two attributes that can be used to mark an assertion: wsp:Optional and wsp:Ignorable. The WS-Policy Framework allows a policy assertion to be marked with both "optional" and "Ignorable" simultaneously. The presence of "@wsp:optional=true" on an assertion is a syntactic compact form for two alternatives, one with the assertion and the other without the assertion. Hence syntactically marking an assertion "A" with both the @wsp:Optional and @wsp:Ignorable with the value of "true" for both, is equivalent to two alternatives; one where the assertion A exists with @wsp:Ignorable=true and the second where the assertion A does not exist. ======== Note: Separately Monica / Fabian plan to address issue of understandability and mode (?) with Section 3.4.1 and reference back to Section 2.8 if needed. Thanks, Prasad
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2007 16:53:56 UTC