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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsrm message

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

Subject: Re: [wsrm] Rel YY


Doug Bunting wrote:

> Tom and Sunil,
> Is this issue about preferences against attributes or against using
> attributes to drive somewhat larger decisions?  I am primarily curious

It's the latter.

> though it might make me lean one way or the other.
> At the moment, one thing seems necessary to me is preventing a sender
> including a request for ordering but no sequence number or ending a

 If the decision making is based on the values of the attributes or elements,
 we cannot enforce it by schema.

> group that is not ordered.  How exactly those things are tied together
> and how the schema prevents four or six categories where only three have
> "meaning" seems much less important.  But, I would certainly prefer the
> proposed MessageOrder element or similar attributes *not* be allowed (in
> the schema, not just the text) without the existing SequenceNumber element.

 Both the proposals (Jacques's  initial proposal and my amended one) do require
 SequenceNumber. The only difference is I wanted it to be Optional, where as
 Jacques wanted it to be mandatory.

> I also believe (going the other way) that it is better to restrict a
> messaging schema so that each thing you want to "say" can be said in


> only one way.  If we re-introduce the MessageOrder element or add more
> to the SequenceNumber attributes to introduce the same categorization,
> we should remove any (overlapping) special semantics for a
> SequenceNumber of 0.

 At this time we are only listing alternate choices. We eventually have to pick one,
 not both.


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