This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Several editorial comments have been provided on the current draft of the Guidelines in the discussions on Issues 4660-4664 and 4672.[1] Here are the editorial comments that do not relate to the Issues referenced above but are associated comments already logged. [2] 1. Comment: Minor editorial nits [3] 2. Comment: In Section 5.3.4, consider reiterating reuse: [2] Change from: "New Assertion Authors should focus on creating assertions for those specific constraints and capabilities that do not overlap with other domains but that communicate new functionality." Change to: "New Assertion Authors should focus on creating assertions for those specific constraints and capabilities that do not overlap with other domains but that communicate new functionality or reuse existing policy assertions where possible." 3. Comment: Specify this important information earlier in Section 5.4 rather than waiting until after Best Practice 12; suggested location for specifying this is at the end of first paragraph in Section 5.4. Keep similar information later after Best Practice 12. [2] Reference: "It is important to note that the main consideration for selecting parameters or nesting of assertions is that the framework intersection algorithm processes nested alternatives, but does not consider parameters in its algorithm." Corresponding to this, provide similar guidance later (where text originally occurred).[2] Comment: For text to be retained after Best Practice 12: Change from: "The main consideration for selecting parameters or nesting of assertions is that the framework intersection algorithm processes nested alternatives, but does not consider parameters in its algorithm." Change to: "As previously indicated, nested policy assertions in policy alternatives are processed by the framework intersection algorithm while assertion parameters are not." 4. Comment: In Section 5.4.1, make clear than an assertion parameter is additional qualifying information consistent with the Framework. [2] Change from: "An assertion author should represent useful (or additional) information necessary for engaging the behavior represented by a policy assertion as assertion parameters." Change to: "An assertion author should represent useful additive information necessary for engaging the behavior represented by a policy assertion as assertion parameters." [1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4660 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4661 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4662 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4663 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4664 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4672 [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/0069.html [3] Two files on editorial nits found in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/0069.html with files: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/att-0069/Web_Services_PolicyGuidelines-strawman-diff-editorial-comment.doc http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/att-0069/Web_Services_PolicyGuidelines-strawman-diff-editorial-comment.pdf
Link to email to the list for this issue: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/0095.html
[11:10] cferris: 1. disregard the changes in the first section [11:10] cferris: 2. accept change to add "qualifying" in section 5.4 [11:10] cferris: 3. 5.4.1 s/normalize/normalization/ [11:10] cferris: 4. disregard other changes as they modify proposed changes that were not accepted [11:11] dmoberg: cferris: misc. profanities over misbehavin mouse [11:15] cferris: 5. comment 2 in the bug no action [11:21] cferris: 6. replace 5.4 with the following: [11:21] cferris: There are two different ways to provide additional information in an assertion beyond its type: assertion parameters and nested policy expressions. We cover these two cases below followed by a comparison of these approaches targeting when to use either of the two approaches. The main consideration for choosing between use of parameters or nested policy expressions is that the framework intersection algorithm processes nested policy expressions, but does not consider parameters in the algorithm. [11:22] cferris: ... and remove the paragraph starting with "The main consideration" from later in section 5.4.2 [11:24] cferris: 7. s/ useful (or additional)/useful additive/ in BP 12 RESOLUTION: close issue 4695 with the above 7 changes See http://www.w3.org/2007/07/18-ws-policy-irc#T15-27-02