RE: Utility of Ignorable?

David:
The semantics I would have liked is that Ignorable assertions are always ignored during intersection.  This is not what we got and, in my view, the strict and lax options muddy the semantics and leave hardly any utility.

All the best, Ashok

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Orchard
> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 4:02 PM
> To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: Utility of Ignorable?
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> As I did the update to the primer for 4414, it became glaringly obvious
> that I couldn't see the utility of Ignorable when Optional is available.
> The EOL assertion is a great example of this.  The table in 3.8.4 shows
> the boolean combinations.
> 
> When Optional="true", ignorable means nothing to the client.  When
> Optional="false", then Ignorable has some impact.  But we see the *only*
> difference between Ignorable=true and ignorable=false is when the client
> does not know about the assertion and lax processing is done.
> 
> We have effectively addeed Ignorable for the sole scenario of where
> optional=false and we want lax intersection clients to produce an
> intersection.  But this doesn't seem like a tremendously useful scenario
> to me.  I would think that a service would just want optional=true and
> be done with it!  Or, if it is really required, then why would it want
> lax clients to produce an intersection?  It could just put
> optional=false and be done with it.
> 
> Your thoughts?  I don't want to raise this as a bug quite yet because
> perhaps a quick bit of explanation will do it.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave
>

Received on Friday, 4 May 2007 11:57:33 UTC