RE: proposal for 6594, 672, 6673

Not really.  RX is a bit different in that it says "The following 
describes the content model of ..." - which means it's going to fully 
describe the element in question.  So, in that case its, sort of, ok to 
repeat what's already stated near the top of the spec (in the 
extensibility section).  But, IMO, its a pointless repetition.
WS-T says "The following describes additional, normative constraints on 
the outline listed above:" - which to me says "I'm only to talk about 
'new' and 'special' stuff you need to think about" (its the word 
'additional' that I'm focusing on) and I don't think repeating the same 
stuff about xs:any's is needed.  I prefer T's way of doing it since 
repeating stuff can lead to inconsistencies and people will need to check 
very carefully to see if things are the exact same (word for word) each 
time since technically someone could slip in a tweak. 

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.



Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com> 
04/21/2009 01:58 PM

To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc
"public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>, 
"public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org" 
<public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org>
Subject
RE: proposal for 6594, 672, 6673






Doug,
Don?t you think that it is useful to call out specific points of 
extensibility in the spec?
Both Policy and RX use this notation.
--Geoff
 
From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 10:32 AM
To: Geoff Bullen
Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org; 
public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: proposal for 6594, 672, 6673
 

Hi Geoff, 
  I'm ok with most of this but I don't think we need the extra stuff about 
the {any} and @{any} - no other WSRA spec has this text for their 
extensibility points and I think our extensibility section already covers 
this.  So, if we remove those edits I'm ok with this. 

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog. 


Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org 
04/21/2009 01:04 PM 


To
"public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org> 
cc

Subject
proposal for 6594, 672, 6673
 








The proposal (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Mar/0088.html
) from IBM is generally good and we suggest the following changes. 
  
Here is a summary of the proposed changes ? change doc is attached. 
  
1)     The proposal for 6730 (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Apr/0024.html
) generally clears up the notion of extensions. I have reworded all 8 
messages to hopefully make more accurate statements about the use of 
extensions. 
2)     Some suggested text to clarify the first paragraph in PutResponse. 
3)     Some suggested text to clarify the first paragraph in Create. 
  
--Geoff 
 
  
  
From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org 
[mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Davis
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 10:15 PM
To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: proposal for 6594, 672, 6673 
  

Attached is joint proposal for issues 6594, 6672 and 6673 - they all 
seemed to touch on the same concern. 



thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.[attachment 
"I6594-6672-6673-prop.doc" deleted by Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM]