Re: Testable assertions in WSDL 1.2

Jean-Jacques,

Most XML editors have auto-complete feature anyway so unless you are
a glutton for punishment, ther would be no more typing involved and the 
full value string makes it more readable IMO.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624

Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote on 06/12/2003 06:00:41 AM:

> 
> 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 07:32:46 UTC