RE: proposal for 6594, 672, 6673

I liked it better because what I proposed is more assertive. The last 
sentence in your proposed text reads:

"If extension elements are present, they MUST occur after the mandatory 
first child element. "

This is a passive statement regarding the fact that the fact that there 
must be at least one child element.

I just like things to be more assertively stated in a spec. Less likely 
for people to misunderstand intent.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Industry Standards
IBM Software Group, Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris

phone: +1 508 234 2986





From:
Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>
To:
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" 
<public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
Date:
04/23/2009 02:55 PM
Subject:
RE: proposal for 6594, 672, 6673
Sent by:
public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org



Doug,
I have no real objection to that particular change to the Put message, 
although I am curious as to why you think it is better?
If you propose to change other messages similarly, I would want to see the 
text you are proposing, before agreeing.
 
I think there is value in the {any} statements that I added.  Specifically 
the “Such elements MUST NOT use the Web Services Transfer namespace name” 
wording seems useful to be included.  It also seems useful to callout the 
specific spots where extension can be made, but am willing to accept 
alternatives.
 
Geoff
 
 
From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org [
mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Davis
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:38 AM
To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: RE: proposal for 6594, 672, 6673
 

Geoff, 
  Chris suggested some wording tweaks - for example, for Put: 
This REQUIRED element MUST have as its first child element, an element 
that comprises the representation of the resource that is to be replaced. 
Additional extension elements MAY be included after the element 
representing the resource. 

instead of: 
This is a REQUIRED element.  The first child element MUST contain the 
representation to be used for the update.  If extension elements are 
present, they MUST occur after the mandatory first child element. 

Thoughts? 

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]