OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-iic-conform message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: Re: [ebxml-iic-conform] 7/9/2002: Comments on Level 1 ConformanceRequirements


Monica,

I would prefer it if you could at the _worst_ use Excel. I'm a Mac user, 
and we don't have Access in OS X land :-)

The best choice IMO is DocBook.  Once a gearhead, always a gearhead.


-Matt

On Tuesday, July 9, 2002, at 09:38  AM, Monica Martin wrote:

> I'd have to go back and see what we have in the comments thus far.  Will
> try to do so by next call.  This could be an issues list in Access
> (similar to what CPPA has used).
>
> What's the preference?
>
> Thanks. Monica
>
> 	-----Original Message-----
> 	From: Jacques Durand
> 	Sent: Tue 7/9/2002 10:32 AM
> 	To: Monica Martin; ebxml-iic-conform@lists.oasis-open.org
> 	Cc:
> 	Subject: RE: [ebxml-iic-conform] 7/9/2002: Comments on Level 1
> Conformance Requirements
> 	
> 	
>
> 	Monica:
>
> 	could you keep track of this "audit list"?
> 	(including items you pointed out in your own comments)
> 	We would submit it to MS TC with our test reqs.
>
> 	Regrads,
>
> 	Jacques
>
> 	-----Original Message-----
> 	From: Monica Martin [ mailto:mmartin@certivo.net]
> 	Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 9:22 AM
> 	To: Michael Kass; mwang@tibco.com;
> 	ebxml-iic-conform@lists.oasis-open.org
> 	Subject: [ebxml-iic-conform] 7/9/2002: Comments on Level 1
> Conformance
> 	Requirements
>
>
> 	On, these items r1.2.11 and r1.4.16 should be on a audit list to
> be
> 	discussed with TC.
> 	
> 	Thanks, all.
> 	Monica
> 	-----Original Message-----
> 	From: Michael Kass
> 	Sent: Tue 7/9/2002 9:43 AM
> 	To: mwang@tibco.com; ebxml-iic-conform@lists.oasis-open.org
> 	Cc:
> 	Subject: Re: [ebxml-iic-conform] Comments on Leve 1 Conformance
> 	Requirements
>
>
>
> 	        Michael,
> 	
> 	            Thanks for your comments.  I've incorporated changes
> where
> 	necessary.
> 	
> 	        Mike
> 	
> 	
> 	        At 06:51 PM 7/5/2002 -0700, Michael Wang wrote:
> 	        >I finally got around reading the Leve 1 Conformance
> 	Requirements.
> 	        >I have some comments on it.
> 	        >
> 	        >r1.1.20
> 	        >The Assertion mentions of SOAP Header contains one
> ebXML
> 	        >MessageHeader element.  What happens when there are
> more than
> 	        >one MessageHeader element present?  Should this be
> checked?
> 	        >Most schema validators will not pick this up as it is
> valid.
> 	        >If we say to check this then all the top level
> extension
> 	        >elements have the same issue.
> 	
> 	        [MIKE K] - This test specifically will test for multiple
> MessageHeader
> 	        elements is present,
> 	        and will fail the candidate MSH if more than one is
> found.  You
> 	are right
> 	        that most schema
> 	        validators won't pick this up.  We will have to use
> XPath tests
> 	to check
> 	        for such a case.
> 	
> 	
> 	        >r1.2.11
> 	        >The Assertion mentions 'NotRecognised'.  I believe this
> should
> 	        >be 'ValueNotRecognized'.
> 	
> 	
> 	        [MIKE K] :You are right. Spec is incorrect in section
> 3.1.5. I
> 	fixed the
> 	        test requirement to 'ValueNotRecognized'
> 	
> 	
> 	        >r1.2.18, r1.2.19, r1.2.20
> 	        >These discusses aspects related to Reliable Messaging.
> If we
> 	        >have decided to put Reliable Messaging in level 2 then
> these
> 	        >should be resident in level 2 Requirements right?
> 	
> 	
> 	        [MIKE K] - All 3 now moved to level 2
> 	
> 	
> 	        >r1.4.13
> 	        >It is not clear to me what's the requirment here.  The
> Name
> 	        >of this item mentions "Short Description" but the
> assertion
> 	        >mentions of "Long Description".
> 	
> 	        [MKE K] : Changed to "Long Description" for both
> 	
> 	
> 	        >r1.4.16
> 	        >The mention of ErrorURI is not quite right.  From the
> Messaging
> 	        >Spec it mentions of ErrorURI of CPPA.  However, I
> cannot find
> 	        >ErrorURI in any CPPA specs.  I believe the Messaging
> Spec is
> 	        >trying to say to use the URI defined for the "error"
> Endpoint
> 	        >(or "allPurpose" Endpoint if "error" Endpoint is not
> defined).
> 	        >We should probabaly clarify it here.
> 	
> 	
> 	        [MIKE K] : You're right.  This needs clarification. Will
> leave
> 	as is for now
> 	
> 	
> 	        >-mw
> 	        >
> 	        >
> 	
> 	
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 	        >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the
> 	subscription
> 	        >manager: < http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
> 	
> 	
> 	
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 	        To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the
> subscription
> 	        manager: < http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
> 	
>
>
> 	----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> 	manager: < http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
--
Matthew MacKenzie
XML Global R&D
PGP Key available upon request.



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC