[SAGA-RG] saga core spec - final call

[Fisher, SM (Steve)]

Andre,

Having considered this a little more, I think that default values only
make sense for non-optional attributes that are R/W. Default values are
not useful for the other 3 combinations.

Steve


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andre Merzky [mailto:andre at merzky.net] 
> Sent: 10 October 2007 22:15
> To: Fisher, SM (Steve)
> Cc: Andre Merzky; SAGA RG
> Subject: Re: [SAGA-RG] saga core spec - final call
> 
> I can't remember the reason for that statement for the life
> of me *blush*  So, at the moment I'm perfectly fine with
> removing that requirement.
> 
> Cheers, Andre.
> 
> 
> Quoting [Fisher, SM (Steve)] (Oct 10 2007):
> > 
> > Andre,
> > 
> > There is just one small thing I don't like. In section 3.8 
> it says:  
> > "Non-optional attributes MUST have a default value (which can be an
> > empty
> > string)."
> > 
> > We have found this rather inconvenient for the service 
> discovery work
> > where we often return values which are not optional but 
> have no default
> > value - for example the URL of a service. We have been 
> obliged to give
> > these default values of empty strings which is misleading - 
> and is not
> > even a valid URL (I think).
> > 
> > Would it break anything if this sentence were to be deleted?
> > 
> > I am sorry to bring this up at the last moment
> > 
> > Steve
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: saga-rg-bounces at ogf.org 
> > > [mailto:saga-rg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf Of Andre Merzky
> > > Sent: 03 October 2007 21:37
> > > To: SAGA RG
> > > Cc: Gregory Newby; Shantenu Jha
> > > Subject: [SAGA-RG] saga core spec - final call
> > > 
> > > Hi group(s), 
> > > 
> > > the deed is done, finally, and we incorporated all public
> > > comments back into the SAGA spec, and then some.  And
> > > then some more.
> > > 
> > > So, we would like to have a one week final call within the
> > > SAGA groups before we resubmit to the OGF editor.  So,
> > > please, have a look at the document(s), and raise your voice
> > > if there is something you don't agree with.  There are no
> > > open known issues at the moment, no TODO's and no FIXME's.
> > > But the text needs reviewing from a native (or good) English
> > > speaker, and also needs some formatting fixes.  Shantenu and
> > > Thilo agreed to help with that, but more volonteers are VERY
> > > welcome!
> > > 
> > > I attach two versions of the document: the clean version
> > > which is to be resubmitted, and a version which includes
> > > markup of the changes.  The markup semantics is:
> > > 
> > >   red   : removed
> > >   green : fixed
> > >   blue  : added
> > > 
> > > For large parts of the text (the verbatim sections), you'll
> > > find diff style markups
> > > 
> > >   + : added
> > >   ! : fixed
> > >   - : removed
> > > 
> > > I'll try to come up with a detailed change log tomorrow or
> > > Friday, which should help you to understand the evolution of
> > > the document.
> > > 
> > > BTW, the spec grew bigger again, but mostly because of added
> > > details, and not of added semantics.
> > > 
> > > Cheers, Andre
> > > 
> > > 
> > > PS.: we know of course that a one week final call is short,
> > > but we would _really_ like to get the spec out of the door
> > > by OGF21.  If you have concerns about the short call, please
> > > let us know!
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message, however,
> > > a significant number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
> -- 
> No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message, however,
> a significant number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
>