One possibility, perhaps an ugly one, is to define Optional so that it can only take one value: 'true'. Then it can appear only if an extension is optional. A.S.McGough wrote:
That structure of Optional="true" would seem to work for backwards compatibility. Though it would break the statement that in all JSDL documents there are no defaults. As we'd have to say if Optional is not defined then Optional="false". Otherwise the "there are no defaults in JSDL" would allow people to say if its not defined then I can do what I want - which will probably be to ignore it!
Thoughts?
steve..
Fabio Benedetti wrote:
Following up today discussion on the call about the specification of optional or mandatory extension to JSDL, following is the link to the WS-Policy specification
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ws-policy-20061117/
In section 4.3.1 is described how domain specific policy assertions can specify if they are optional or mandatory
Ciao, Fabio
Fabio Benedetti STSM SWG/Tivoli Job Scheduling Development Via Sciangai, 53 00144 Rome Phone: +39 06596 62433 Fax: +39 06596 62077 eMail: fabio.benedetti@it.ibm.com
-- jsdl-wg mailing list jsdl-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/jsdl-wg