[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-caf-editors] Clarification on issue #136
Yes, I understand. It's mandatory, but can have a null element ;-) Mark. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Simeon Greene" <simeon.m.greene@oracle.com> To: "Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com> Cc: <ws-caf-editors@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 3:46 PM Subject: Re: [ws-caf-editors] Clarification on issue #136 > 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. > > > > > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]