- From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:50:01 -0400
- To: Peter Madziak <peter.madziak@agfa.com>
- Cc: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF0C57EC54.906A133E-ON85256F2A.006174C7-85256F2A.0061F587@ca.ibm.com>
Peter, Thx for the comments. Moving the Z into an Appendix is like putting it in a separate document from a readability and maintenance point of view. The best way to use Z is to augment the English text. The Z should be very close to the English text that it formalizes. That way you can see the correspondance and keep them in synch. BTW, we plan to provide a version of the spec that hides the Z and that is cross-linked with the full version. It will be like collapsing and expanding the Z. Arthur Ryman, Rational Desktop Tools Development phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077 assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411 fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920 mobile: +1-416-939-5063 intranet: http://labweb.torolab.ibm.com/DRY6/ Peter Madziak <peter.madziak@agfa.com> 10/01/2004 01:46 PM To Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA cc Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org Subject Re: Example of Z Notation in WSDL 2.0 Component Model Spec Arthur: With respect to the "bigger issue" I personally found the Z-notation-augmentation useful and welcome; however, if it was thought to be somewhat on the "esoteric side" would it make sense to move it to an appendix? Peter ------- Peter Madziak Software Architect Agfa HealthCare ph: 519-746-6210 (2577) Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com> Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 09/30/2004 09:01 AM To: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org> cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org, (bcc: Peter Madziak/AMIMQ/CAN/AGFA/CA/BAYER) Subject: Re: Example of Z Notation in WSDL 2.0 Component Model Spec Hugo, I am attaching a test file which contains unicode character entities which will show you how a lot of the symbols will look in Mozilla. I am expanding it to include a full comparison of all the alternate renderings (e.g. fonts, images, maybe even MathML ) but that is not complete yet. I'm confident that the rendering problem can be solved in several ways. I suggest we focus the discussion on the bigger issue of whether we should augment the English description with a standard, formal, machine-checkable, notation. Arthur Ryman, Rational Desktop Tools Development phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077 assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411 fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920 mobile: +1-416-939-5063 intranet: http://labweb.torolab.ibm.com/DRY6/ Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org> Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 09/30/2004 07:28 AM To www-ws-desc@w3.org cc Subject Re: Example of Z Notation in WSDL 2.0 Component Model Spec * Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com> [2004-09-29 13:11-0400] > Thanks, that works better for me (maybe for others, too), so now at least > I can know what we're talking about (well, except for those imperials > mispronouncing the word "zee"). I see something, but not the right thing, e.g. "e" instead of "?", with Firefox 1.0PR under Linux. Is it possible to see the Unicode version, which BTW is the normative version we should produce as per my discussions internally at W3C fulfilling my action item from Toronto. An alternative version with PNGs is possible if we want to. BTW, to test how your browser will deal with them, this message will be archived on lists.w3.org and will contain the rightwards double arrow character. Regards, Hugo -- Hugo Haas - W3C mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Attachments
- application/octet-stream attachment: signature.asc
- application/octet-stream attachment: zed-symbols.xsl
- application/octet-stream attachment: zed-symbols.xml
Received on Monday, 11 October 2004 17:50:39 UTC