wsrp message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrp] Semantics of capabilities in property descriptions
- From: Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>
- To: OASIS WSRP TC <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:21:08 -0500
How about if the second sentence becomes
"If wsrp:required
is not specified, the sender of the property may choose whether or not
to supply a value"?
Opinions on the advantages of capabilities
vs use vs usage?
Rich
Subbu Allamaraju <subbu@bea.com>
12/15/05 09:02 AM
|
To
| OASIS WSRP TC <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| Re: [wsrp] Semantics of capabilities
in property descriptions |
|
Rich Thompson wrote:
>
> The intent is to allow a portlet to express a requirement for a
> particular property to have a value before normal use on a page (e.g.
an
> email portlet requiring the mail server's URI). This makes a lot of
> sense for registration and customization properties and the spec calls
> out when the semantics of other uses of this descriptive structure
> override the possible setting of this capability.
I agree.
> I agree that "sender" is better than "user" for
both sentences and have
Thanks for the change. But it still leaves the second sentence unclear.
"If the capability is not set, the sender of the property may choose
whether or not to supply a value."
My difficulty is in deciphering "if the capability is not set".
The
subject of the sentence is missing.
> changed it for draft 13. As always; if anyone has a proposal for a
> clearer term, please propose it. In particular, any suggestions that
> would be better than "capabilities"?
How about we borrow the term "use" from the XML Schema spec?
If the TC
thinks this would be confusing, we can try "usage".
Subbu
> *Subbu Allamaraju <subbu@bea.com>*
>
> 12/14/05 02:47 PM
>
>
> To
> OASIS
WSRP TC <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
> cc
>
> Subject
> [wsrp]
Semantics of capabilities in property descriptions
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> When a producer declares that a given property is required (via
> capability wsrp:required), is it valid for a consumer to not supply
a
> value. There may be use cases where the consumer cannot simply supply
a
> value.
>
> The current wording in the spec is as follows:
>
> wsrp:required: This capability means that the user has to supply a
value
> for this property. If this capability is not set, the user of the
> property may choose whether or not to supply a value.
>
> The intent of this wording (particularly the second sentence) is not
> very clear to me. I presume the term "user" means the "sender"
of the
> property.
>
> (BTW, the term "capability" in this context seems a bit
awkward.)
>
> Comments?
>
> Subbu
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your
TCs in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
To
> unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs
in
> OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs
in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]