967 2004-12-20 10:23:53 +0000 Ambiguity in the spec 2005-08-03 13:38:47 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WS Choreography Last Call Comment: Confirmed Closed unspecified Other other CLOSED LATER http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor-comments/2004Dec/0000.html P2 normal -- 1 martin.chapman ylafon martin.chapman oldest_to_newest 2701 0 martin.chapman 2004-12-20 10:23:53 +0000 From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> The lack of clearly identified normative references and the lack of a conformance section introduce a lot of ambiguity, it is for example not clear what the document considers a NCName. Is that an NCName as defined in XML Namespaces 1.0 or as defined in XML Namespaces 1.1? Maybe it depends on whether the document uses XML 1.0 or XML 1.1? Is it at all allowed to use XML 1.1 for CDL documents? Another example is XInclude, the document notes [...] A Choreography Package aggregates a set of WS-CDL type definitions, provides a namespace for the definitions and through the use of XInclude [XInclude], MAY syntactically include WS-CDL type definitions that are defined in other Choreography Packages. [...] in section 2.2.1, but that's already clear from section 2.2.4 which notes [...] To support extending the WS-CDL language, this specification allows the use of extensibility elements and/or attributes defined in other XML namespaces. Extensibility elements and/or attributes MUST use an XML namespace different from that of WS-CDL. All extension namespaces used in a WS-CDL document MUST be declared. [...] So maybe the former text means that processors must support XInclude? Another example is section 2.2.2 which notes [...] A WS-CDL processor MUST ensure that the document is correct before processing it. The correctness may involve XML well-formedness as well as semantic ;checks, such as unicity of Variable definitions, of a single root Choreography, etc. [...] Well, it needs to be clearly specified what correctness involves, how else should it be possible to implement this requirement interoperably? In summary, I think there is not much point in issuing a Last Call announcement with integral parts of the specification such as the conformance section missing. 4148 1 martin.chapman 2005-02-14 20:24:01 +0000 From meeting on 11-jan-05 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2005Jan/att-0002/2005-01- 11_WS-Chor_Notes.txt: Discussion deferred as deemed to be a technical issue. 4569 2 martin.chapman 2005-07-14 14:11:00 +0000 from 8th march minutes: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/chor/5/03/08-minutes.html ACTION: Yves will sort out a list of normative references A WS-CDL processor MUST ensure that the document is correct before processing it. The correctness may involve XML well-formedness as well as semantic ;checks, such as unicity of Variable definitions, of a single root Choreography, etc. ACTION: define what is meant by correctness - see above RESOLVED WILL FIXED - FILL IN CONFOMANCE SECTION 5347 3 martin.chapman 2005-08-03 13:38:47 +0000 The WG agreed that this has been fully addressed in the spec and confirmed on the 2nd Aug 05 Con Call to close this: http://www.w3.org/2005/08/02-ws-chor-irc