Re: Issue 115

DONE.

Jacek Kopecky wrote:

> David, in light of our decision to make notes non-normative I'd suggest
> using lowercase "should" instead of the uppercase "SHOULD", and same in
> all other notes in our spec.
> 
> The uppercase keywords SHOULD NOT be overused. 8-)
> 
> Jacek
> 
> 
> On Thu, 2004-03-18 at 18:12, David Booth wrote:
> 
>>Per today's teleconference, here is suggested rewording for the second 
>>sentence of section 6.1.1:
>>
>>[[
>>The presence of an optional extensibility element or attribute MAY 
>>therefore augment the semantics of a WSDL document in ways that do not 
>>invalidate the existing semantics.  However, the presence of a mandatory 
>>extensibility element MAY alter the semantics of a WSDL document in ways 
>>that invalidate the existing semantics.
>>
>>Note: Authors of extensibility elements SHOULD avoid altering the existing 
>>semantics in ways that are likely to confuse users.
>>]]
>>
>>
>>
>>>Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 10:30:30 -0500
>>>To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "Jonathan Marsh" 
>>><jmarsh@microsoft.com>, "WS Description List" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
>>>From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
>>>Subject: Re: Issue 115
>>>
>>>It depends on what you mean by "change".  If you mean that an optional 
>>>extension may ADD to the existing semantics without invalidating them, 
>>>then I agree.  However, many people will take the word "change" to mean 
>>>that an optional extension may invalidate the semantics of something else 
>>>in the document.  We need to be clear that an optional extension does NOT 
>>>invalidate the semantics of anything in the WSDL document.  That's why 
>>>it's optional.  A mandatory extension MAY invalidate the semantics of 
>>>something in the WSDL document.  That's why you MUST understand it in 
>>>order to understand the document as a whole.  This is what section 6.1.1 
>>>tries to express.
>>>
>>>
>>>At 09:26 AM 3/17/2004 +0600, Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>>>
>>>>IIRC the request was to explicitly state that extensions change the
>>>>semantics. Your wording implies that (adding props to the component
>>>>model) but its not explicit.
>>>>
>>>>BTW even optional extensions change the semantics. However, a processor
>>>>may ignore the change .. but it still does change the semantics.
>>>>
>>>>Sanjiva.
>>>>
>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>From: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>
>>>>To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>; "WS Description List"
>>>><www-ws-desc@w3.org>
>>>>Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 7:07 AM
>>>>Subject: Re: Issue 115
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I think the second sentence adds more confusion than clarification,
>>>>
>>>>because
>>>>
>>>>>it doesn't distinguish optional extensions from mandatory extensions.  The
>>>>>second sentence was:
>>>>>[[
>>>>>The presence of extensibility elements and attributes MAY therefore change
>>>>>the semantics of a WSDL document.
>>>>>]]
>>>>>
>>>>>I think it would be better to rename the title of 6.3 to "Extensibility
>>>>
>>>>and
>>>>
>>>>>the Component Model" and delete the second sentence, such that 6.3 reads
>>>>
>>>>only:
>>>>
>>>>>[[
>>>>>6.3 Extensibility and the Component Model
>>>>>
>>>>>As indicated above, it is expected that the presence of extensibility
>>>>>elements and attributes will result in additional properties appearing in
>>>>>the component model.
>>>>>]]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>At 10:43 AM 3/15/2004 -0800, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>The text added so far is at [1].  If this proves adequate, we can
>>>>>>reassign this issue to part three while awaiting changes there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[1]
>>>>>>http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html#exte
>>>>>>nsibility-semantics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>David Booth
>>>>>W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
>>>>>Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
>>>
>>>--
>>>David Booth
>>>W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
>>>Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
> 
>

Received on Friday, 19 March 2004 06:14:09 UTC