Re: Markup for testable assertions

I'd agree in general, but here I will have to type the markup; 3 years 
of experience say: the shorter, the better!

JJ.

Amelia A. Lewis wrote:
> 
> 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!
>>
> 
>

Received on Friday, 28 March 2003 12:16:01 UTC