- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 08:53:53 +0600
- To: "Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
- Cc: "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>, <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
NOTE: I changed the subject to reflect the on-going discussion. > I still support your original position, hence I disagree with making > this pattern normative. How about the compromise of having the pattern > Amy proposes in a non-normative appendix to the patterns spec? We define > it properly, assign it a URI, use it to elucidate the patterns > framework, make it available for anybody to use it (if they have > a binding for it, that is), but it's *not* normative. I think this is ok .. and basically this is all we can do for any patttern. It is however normative to the point that if someone uses that pattern URI then the semantics MUST be exactly as specified. Beyond that there's no real "normativeness" for pattern URIs. Some patterns will of course get exercised in bindings we do (i.e., the bindings will only be applicable to those patterns), but that's as far as it goes. I suggest we take this approach for all patterns which are not used directly in the spec. This seems like a reasonable compromise between not supporting unused patterns and propertly documenting and naming specific patterns which people find useful. Sanjiva.
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 22:54:19 UTC