- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 14:26:55 +0200
- To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Yes, I think it should. Currently, we mostly indicate optionality, e.g. "an optional extends AII", and we tend to rely on context otherwise, which does not always work, e.g. "one or more AII : a name AII, an optional extends AII, etc.". Name is obviously required, but could be optional under that phrasing when there is an extends AII. So yes, please go ahead, as far as I'm concerned. Jean-Jacques. Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: > I'm editing and hence have questions .. > > Currently <include> and <import> do not allow extensibility. Was > that intentional?? I think that's just an editorial glitch which > should be fixed. > > In the current draft, when say element foo has an attribute bar, > it says "a bar AII ..." and doesn't explicitly say "a REQUIRED > bar AII". For optional attributes it does say optional. Shouldn't > it say REQUIRED explicitly?? > > Sanjiva. >
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2003 08:29:03 UTC