Markup for testable assertions

• From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
• Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:29:40 -0800
• To: "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>, <roberto.chinnici@sun.com>, <sanjiva@us.ibm.com>, "W3C Public Archive" <www-archive@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <7C083876C492EB4BAAF6B3AE0732970E0AEF0071@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

This mail is intended to start a discussion about testable assertions
and associated markup in our spec. Here are some thoughts/questions:

1.	Would it be better to have a section in the spec with all the
assertions in. And reference those assertions from their 'location' in
the spec itself? Or would it be better to 'sprinkle' the assertions
throughout the spec?

2.	Do we want the assertions to appear in the spec itself or is
there a separate stylesheet which emits the assertions?

3.	Do we want 'classes' of assertion? Seems like whereever we have
things like MUST/SHOULD/MAY then we have an assertion. Seems also we
would want to capture the distinction in the markup.

4.	Some assertions are captured in the schema. For example the fact
that wsdl:import and wsdl:include must appear before wsdl:types

5.	Some assertions are captured in the schema for the 'single WSDL'
case but not in the 'multiple WSDL' case. For example, the uniqueness
constraint on the local name of port types is enforced by the schema,
but in the face of wsdl:include you could end up with a collision, which
would be an error.

Lets add to/refine this for a while by e-mail and come up with something
concrete over the next week if we can.

Thanks

Gudge

Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2003 12:29:49 UTC