- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:00:41 +0200
- To: WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
- CC: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
In addition, I prefer that we use a shorter syntax, to save on typing, the equivalent of <el/> and <att/> for elements and attributes. An example of a shorter syntax is <mu/>, <sh/> and <may/>. Other variations are possible. Jean-Jacques. Jeffrey Schlimmer wrote: > In response to the W3C QA Guidelines, the Web Service Description > (a.k.a. WSDL) WG asked the editors to consider a means to indicate > testable assertions within our specifications. To enable a style sheet > to highlight assertions, whether within the text and/or pulled into a > separate table, we have been thinking about explicit markup similar to > the following: > > > > <assert level=”MUST | SHOULD | MAY”> > > /English text of the assertion/ > > </assert> > > > > where MUST, SHOULD, and MAY are defined per RFC 2119. While MUST > assertions are clearly relevant to claims of conformance, the > optionality of SHOULD and MAY are less relevant. Nevertheless, they are > included at present for completeness. > > > > We decided against explicit markup to indicate MUST NOT, SHOULD NOT, and > MAY NOT to avoid the possible conflict / confusion with negative wording > within the text of the assertion. > > > > We think this solution is the least intrusive, most cost-effective means > of complying with the QA guidelines. We are open to alternatives, but to > comply, we must provide some means of easily locating those places in > the document in which conformance requirements are stated. > > > > --The editors >
Received on Thursday, 12 June 2003 06:01:01 UTC