[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 82.1 - proposal to vote (directional vote)
Hi Rania, It seems to me that we have started finding more common ground. [a] AP with opacity-omission [b] AP without opacity-omission [c] EP I guess all of us would agree that the syntactic difference between [a] and [c] are quite big, while syntactic difference between [b] and [c] are much smaller. On the other hand, semantic difference between [a] and [b] may not be that large, while syntactic difference between [a] and [b] are quite large (as large as between [a] and [c]) I guess all of us would agree with the above analysis and statements. There are multiple ways to look at this problem:
Among the first 3 options, I still most prefer #1 (next is #3). There are two very overloaded attributes in A.P. - the "profile" attribute and the "opacityOmissionUsed" attribute (assuming we go for it). The "profile" attribute can totally shift how an A.P. implementation interprete an. A.P. Hence, it is a super important attribute that our schema grammar MUST make it REQUIRED. Otherwise, I can forsee a situation where people would generate A.P. without that profile attribute. An A.P. implementation cannot guess what profile the A.P. is using. That's why I prefer #1 well above #2 and the one-NS "solution". Rania ... your further thoughts? Thanks! Regards, Alex Yiu Rania Khalaf wrote: Back to the two namespace issue: |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]