This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Target: Primer, Section 3.8.3, hypothetical versioning text and examples with table. Description: When wsp:Ignorable is used, it is possible that an unaware clientcould attempt to engage a service with an expiry date, whereby a server would react. This was a discussion point as a result of Issue 4414. Opening this issue closes Action 292.[1] Actions: 1. Account for this possibility in the text that already exists in the accepted and integrated text and table in Section 3.8.3.[2] 2. Also revise table headings to be more succinct and meaningful. A key may also be suggested (Discretion is left to the editors on the use of a 'Key'). Proposal 1. Change from: If CompanyX adds the hypothetical EndOfLife policy assertion with an ignorable attribute and does mark the assertion with wsp:Optional="true", then clients using strict mode who do not understand the hypothetical EndOfLife assertion with the ignorable information will still be compatible with the alternative that does not contain the hypothetical EndOfLife policy assertion as per the intersection rules <<and the server can return an error if the request is received after the expiry date.>> Change to: If CompanyX adds the hypothetical EndOfLife policy assertion with an ignorable attribute and does mark the assertion with wsp:Optional="true", then clients using strict mode who do not understand the hypothetical EndOfLife assertion with the ignorable information will still be compatible with the alternative that does not contain the hypothetical EndOfLife policy assertion as per the intersection rules. <<When wsp:Ignorable="true" is used, clients that are unaware of the hypothetical EndOfLife assertion may make more requests for expired services. This could result in servers generating Faults if the request is received after the expiry date.>> 2. See [3] * Required [Was: wsp:Ignorable="false", wsp:Optional="false"] * Required and Ignorable (for intersection) [Was: wsp:Ignorable="true", wsp:Optional="false"] * Optional [Was: wsp:Ignorable="false", wsp:Optional="true"] * Optional and Ignorable (for intersection) [Was: wsp:Optional="true", wsp:Ignorable="true", wsp:Optional="true"] [1] Action 292: Evaluate whether a new issue needs to be contributed related to resolution of Issue 4414. Action 292 for Dave Orchard, Monica J. Martin See: http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicy/actions/292 [2] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-primer.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#ignorable-and-versioning [3] For Optional or Ignorable: "Omitting this attribute is semantically equivalent to including it with a value of false." See: Framework, Section 4.3.1 (Optional) or Section 4.4 (Ignorable). http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-framework.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#Optional_Policy_Assertions http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-framework.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#ignorable-policy-assertions Issue submitted by Fabian Ritzmann, MaryAnn Hondo, Dave Orchard and Monica J. Martin
See email associated with this issue and Action 292: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0171.html
RESOLUTION: issue 4559 resolved with proposal from Monica et al http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0171.html See http://www.w3.org/2007/05/24-ws-policy-irc#T13-40-02