MHonArc v2.5.2 -->

















wsia message






[Date Prev]
 | [Thread Prev]
 | [Thread Next]
 | [Date Next]

--

[Date Index]
 | [Thread Index]
 | [Elist Home]








Subject: RE: [wsia][wsia-requirements][R414]




From: Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>
To: Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>, wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 06:16:03 -0700






Please delete the word "whatever" and substitute "any." We didn't 
specify terseness of language. Should we?

Suggested:
>R414 [Functionality]
>               The Consumer SHOULD adhere to any property validation
>       constraints the Producer has specified. The Consumer MAY specify
>       additional property validation constraints.



At 8:01 AM -0400 5/6/02, Rich Thompson wrote:
>I think the original intent was that a Consumer may add property validation
>constraints to those specified by the Producer (likely a 'republish'
>requirement). Suggest:
>
>       R414 [Functionality]
>               The Consumer SHOULD adhere to whatever property validation
>       constraints the Producer has specified. The Consumer MAY specify
>       additional property validation constraints.
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>                                                                                                                
>                       Eilon 
>Reshef                                                                               
>                       <eilon.reshef@webc        To:       "'Alan 
>Kropp'" <akropp@epicentric.com>,                
>                       ollage.com> 
>wsia@lists.oasis-open.org                                       
> 
>cc:                                                              
>                       05/04/2002 06:24          Subject:  RE: 
>[wsia][wsia-requirements][R414]                    
> 
>PM                                                                                         
> 
>                                                                                                                
> 
>                                                                                                                
>
>
>
>I agree (except that I would change must to should...).
>