[SAGA-RG] saga core spec - final call

[Andre Merzky]

Right.  But then we don't need the statement you cited, as
we already define default values for non-optional
attributes.  So I think we are better off with removing the
statement altogether.

Cheers,

  Andre.


Quoting [Fisher, SM (Steve)] (Oct 11 2007):
> 
> 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.
> > 



-- 
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message, however,
a significant number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.