Re: [ws-caf-editors] Clarification on issue #136

[Simeon Greene <simeon.m.greene@oracle.com>]

This just came to mind.  If it is mandatory, then the first Context in a
chain will have to set it.  And since that Context will not have a
parent, what value would be used?  Pointing to itself will be awkward
(especially if the type is ContextType).  Because of this I think we
need to keep the element optional and change the text in the spec to
reflect this.

Regards,
Simeon
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 06:08, Mark Little wrote:
> I thought the agreed motion was that the parent context was mandatory, but
> that it could be a subset of the entire hierarchy. However, I was listening
> by phone at the time.
> 
> Mark.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Simeon Greene" <simeon.m.greene@oracle.com>
> To: <ws-caf-editors@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 8:45 PM
> Subject: [ws-caf-editors] Clarification on issue #136
> 
> 
> > see http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=136.
> >
> > The latest comments state:
> > Change parent context from list to zero or one occurrence and further
> > change
> > parentsâ?T context to parentâ?Ts context. Alistair motioned Greg second.
> No
> > opposed. 8 in favor.
> >
> > It then goes on to say:
> > begin with passed context must set the parent context.
> >
> > A strict interpretation of the text makes these two excerpts
> > contradictory in my opinion.  The former excerpt says the element should
> > be optional "zero or one occurrence", yet the latter says that the begin
> > operation "must" set it.  This will cause a conflict between the schema
> > and the spec.  I recommend we either change "must" to "may" or make
> > parent context a mandatory element of the context.  I prefer the first
> > recommendation.
> >
> >
>