Re: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: Inconsistency between spec and schema (AckRequested)

[Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>]

Doug,

No, I am still enamored with my optimization ideas:-) Also, I am aware 
that some favor
keeping the faith with the spec prose, not the schema. I could go either 
way.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://webpages.charter.net/chrisfer/blog.html
phone: +1 508 377 9295

Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM wrote on 08/29/2005 07:22:45 PM:

> Chris,
> 
> I agree we have an inconsistency.
> 
> I am however wondering if this new issue indicates you do not intend to 
> take the "some optimization" ideas further?  Any rationalization we do 
> with respect to attributes and elements is likely to give us a chance to 

> address inconsistencies such as that noted below.
> 
> thanx,
>     doug
> 
> On 29/08/05 15:45, Anish Karmarkar wrote:
> 
> > I noticed the same inconsistency, which I sent to the editors mailing 
> > list some time back.
> > +1
> >
> > [As a side note, section 1.4 says that normative text trumps normative 

> > outline which in turn trumps normative schema.]
> >
> > -Anish
> > -- 
> >
> > Christopher B Ferris wrote:
> >
> >> Title:  Inconsistency between spec and schema (AckRequested)
> >>
> >> Description: There is an inconsistency between the spec and the 
> >> schema for the child element of the
> >> <AckRequested> directive. Is the child element 
> >> wsrm:MaxMessageNumberUsed (as per the schema)
> >> or is it wsrm:MessageNumber as per the spec?
> >>
> >> Here's the prose from line 427 (pdf) of the wsrm spec:
> >>
> >> /wsrm:AckRequested/wsrm:MessageNumber
> >>         This optional element, if present, MUST contain an 
> >> xs:unsignedLong representing the highest
> >>         <MessageNumber> sent by the RM Source within a Sequence. If 
> >> present, it MAY be treated as a
> >>         hint to the RM Destination as an optimization to the process 
> >> of preparing to transmit a
> >>         <SequenceAcknowledgement>.
> >>
> >> Here's the relevant fragment from the schema:
> >>
> >> <xs:complexType name="AckRequestedType">
> >>   <xs:sequence>
> >>     <xs:element ref="wsrm:Identifier"/>
> >>     <xs:element name="MaxMessageNumberUsed" type="xs:unsignedLong" 
> >> minOccurs="0"/>
> >>     <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" minOccurs="0" 
> >> maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
> >>   </xs:sequence>
> >>   <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##other" processContents="lax"/>
> >> </xs:complexType>
> >>
> >> Justification: there is a clear discrepancy between the spec and the 
> >> schema
> >>
> >> Target: core, schema
> >>
> >> Type: editorial?
> >>
> >> Proposal: I believe the intent was to have the element named as per 
> >> the schema. Change the text at line 427 as follows:
> >>
> >> /wsrm:AckRequested/wsrm:MaxMessageNumberUsed
> >>         This optional element, if present, MUST contain an 
> >> xs:unsignedLong representing the highest
> >>         <MessageNumber> sent by the RM Source within a Sequence. If 
> >> present, it MAY be treated as a
> >>         hint to the RM Destination as an optimization to the process 
> >> of preparing to transmit a
> >>         <SequenceAcknowledgement>.
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Christopher Ferris
> >> STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
> >> email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> >> blog: http://webpages.charter.net/chrisfer/blog.html
> >> phone: +1 508 377 9295
> >