RE: Assertions that are not assertions

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Assertions that are not assertions

Jonathan Marsh-2

Thank you for this comments.  The Working Group has resolved these issues as follows:

 

Unless you let us know otherwise by the end of January, we will assume you agree with the resolution of these issues.

 

 


From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Lawrence Mandel
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 6:54 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Assertions that are not assertions

 


The following assertions do not appear to really be assertions at all. I suggest removing them from the assertions table and removing their assertion identifiers.

Description-1201000
WSDL 2.0 definitions are represented in XML by one or more WSDL 2.0 Information Sets (Infosets), that is one or more description element information items.

LM: I think this is too broad to be an assertion.

The Working Group tracked this comment as CR096 [1].  The Working Group removed the cited assertion, see [2].

 

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR096

[2] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#Description_XMLRep

 

Description-1201005
Zero or more element information items amongst its [children], in order as follows:

LM: I don't think this statement contains an assertion and if this is an assertion there are many other instances of this statement that should be added to the assertions table.

The Working Group tracked this comment as CR097 [3].  The Working Group discovered that this constraint actually does test conditions not testable in the schema.  One can write a WSDL document that is schema-valid, yet has the top-level items out of order and thus fails this assertion.  No change was made to the spec in response to this comment.

 

[3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR097  

 

Types-1300002
Specifically components that the schema imports via xs:import are NOT referenceable.

LM: This assertion does not use the MUST NOT convention and I think is covered by the other schema import assertions although I think the text is still useful in the WSDL spec.

The Working Group tracked this comment as CR098 [4].  The Working Group removed the assertion markup, and reworded the sentence as shown in [5], see [6].

 

[4] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR098

[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Dec/0052.html

[6] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#inlining-xsd


Types-1300003
Similarly, components defined in an inlined XML schema are NOT automatically referenceable within WSDL 2.0 document that imported (using wsdl:import ) the WSDL 2.0 document that inlines the schema (see 4.2 Importing Descriptions for more details).

LM: This assertion does not use the MUST NOT convention and I think is covered by the other schema and WSDL import assertions although I think the text is still useful in the WSDL spec.

The Working Group tracked this comment as CR099 [7].  The Working Group removed the assertion markup, and reworded the sentence as shown in [8], see [6].

 

[7] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR099

[8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Dec/0053.html  


Thanks,

Lawrence Mandel

Software Developer
IBM Rational Software
Phone: 905 - 413 - 3814   Fax: 905 - 413 - 4920
[hidden email]