Re: Markup for testable assertions

On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:22:53 +0100
"Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr> wrote:
> +1 to Amy's approach. However, I'd go for a simplified markup; the 
> proposed one is just too cumbersome to type.
> 
> What about instead:
>    <must>...</must>
>    <should>...</should>
>    <may>...</may>
>    <mustn>...</mustn>
>    <shouldn>...</shouldn>
>    <mayn>...</mayn>
> ?

"Terseness in XML is of minimal importance."

*laugh*

I proposed it the way that I did because that way, you can grab *all* of
the assertions with a simple XPath.  If we use six elements instead of
one, then the XPath has to be an alternation instead.  In terms of the
stylesheet, I'd rather see the single-element approach, and I think that
that approach also makes it clear that all of these things are related.

One could also relate things (in the xmlspec.dtd) by creating an entity,
assertions.class.  That works well for the DTD, but isn't as useful in
the stylesheet.

But either way; I just thought that I would share the reason for
designing the proposal as I did.

Amy!
> 
> JJ
> 
> Amelia A. Lewis wrote:
> > Can the xmlspec DTD be enhanced, either experimentally or locally to
> > WSD, to include a <testable> or <assertion> element?
> > 
> > This would, of course, also require a modification of the
> > xmlspec.xsl stylesheet to handle the assertions.
> > 
> > My preference would be that the testable assertions appear in the
> > document itself, and that they be marked as testable assertions.  I
> > would then like to see the stylesheet automatically generate an
> > appendix on conformance, which would extract the 'tags' (an email
> > message MUST have lines of no more than 998 characters plus CR and
> > LF) and generate a hyperlink to the assertion in context.
> > 
> > More below ...
> > 
> > On Wed, 26 Mar 2003 09:29:40 -0800
> > "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>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?
> > 
> > 
> > Sprinkle.  Consolidate in appendix.
> > 
> > 
> >>2.	Do we want the assertions to appear in the spec itself or is
> >>there a separate stylesheet which emits the assertions?
> > 
> > 
> > Assertions SHOULD be part of the normative text.  The stylesheet
> > SHOULD generate an appendix which consolidates all of the assertions
> > into one easily referenced section.
> > 
> > 
> >>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.
> > 
> > 
> > Seems like a good idea.
> > 
> > 
> >>4.	Some assertions are captured in the schema. For example the fact
> >>that wsdl:import and wsdl:include must appear before wsdl:types
> > 
> > 
> > This is also in the text, is it not?  In fact, the text is far
> > clearer on the subject of required sequence, I believe.
> > 
> > 
> >>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.
> > 
> > 
> > But the assertion appears in normative text as well, does it not?
> > 
> > Amy!
> 


-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com

Received on Friday, 28 March 2003 11:51:09 UTC