Michel I was partly objecting to the statement about 'purity' I guess. In any case it's good to know we agree. Michel Drescher wrote:
Andreas and others,
On 4 Apr 2005, at 14:19, Andreas Savva wrote:
I don't see this as a purity issue. We put out of scope security saying that jsdl should be composed with some specialized language to describe those requirements. This is not the same as saying that jsdl should have no elements that might need such extra security assertions. So I can ask for machine with name X but whether I am allowed to use it or not (and what I have to provide to be able to use it) is a different issue and is out of scope. But asking for the machine or resource by name is a resource request and is in scope.
(And I do hope such in-scope / out-of-scope statements don't sound too arbitrary. :-)
Hmm, somehow I thought I was stating the same. Anyway, the way you stated it makes it much more clearer.
Cheers, Michel