Geoff,

W/regards to the "Such elements MUST NOT use the Web Services Transfer namespace name", I'm curious as to why you feel the need to explicitly declare this restriction? The XML Schema for these extension points is:
 
<xs:any minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded" namespace="##other" processContents="lax" />
where "##other" is defined as "Any well-formed XML that is from a namespace other than the target namespace of the type being defined (unqualified elements are not allowed)" [1].

It's clear, then, that you are re-stating what is already defined in the XML Schema. I've done a quick look through the other WS-RA specs and I haven't found any other descriptions of extension points that re-state this restriction. Do you think that it is particularly important to re-state the restriction for the WS-T elements, or do you think we should add this language to any and all descriptions of extension points throughout WS-RA?

I tend to agree with Doug about this; when you re-state something that is already defined and you do so in exception to the norms for the other specs in WS-RA (and/or the WS-* specs) you create a perception in the readers mind that something different or exceptional is going on.

- gp

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#ref34

Geoff Bullen wrote:

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]