Re: Example of Z Notation in WSDL 2.0 Component Model Spec

Amy,

AFAIK, IE is using standard HTML and CSS. However, Mozilla doesn't 
recognize the font switching. On the other hand, Mozilla decided to 
support Unicode[1], but IE doesn't.

So the browsers each support standards but not all the standards. However, 
this is really not a problem because an XSLT can do the right thing for 
the browser. The choice of the XSLT can be done by a Javascript wrapper 
that detects the User-Agent, or we can just give two URLs.

However, I am very interested in your reaction to the notation itself. I 
think most computer science people studied logic at some time. I believe 
that the logic notation is more precise than the natural language, plus it 
can be automatically checked. Also, it can serve as the starting point for 
coding. That's why I'd like us to include it. But if it turns people off, 
then we should not include it.

[1] http://www.mozilla.org/projects/mathml/fonts/

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/



Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
09/29/2004 01:54 PM

To
Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
cc
www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject
Re: Example of Z Notation in WSDL 2.0 Component Model Spec







On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:45:38 -0400
Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
> appearance, not to resolve the browser dependency. Have you got IE
> handy?

Neither IE nor an OS that it's available for, no.  Is the IE version
standards-compliant, running as it does on a W3C website?

(I just had this argument with IT, so I'm mildly short-tempered on the
subject)

Interestingly, the HTML version seems to work for me, but not for Roberto
(I'm running Firefox 0.9.3 on Debian Linux)

Overall, though, I have to say that if this is one of the issues to face
with regard to the publication of this notation, I am tending toward
disfavor.  "You must use a standards-compliant browser in order to read
this specification" may be acceptable for a W3C spec, but anything else
isn't ("must install a plugin," "must use a browser with known bugs that
this presentation tickles," "must use this proprietary presentation
technology").

Apart from that, I only vaguely recognize the notation (or am mistaking
the symbols for those I recall, vaguely, from symbolic logic all those
years ago), so it seems worthwhile to me only if it is relatively
effortless.

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com