I'm happy to change it to a MUST.
Yaron
Frank Leymann wrote:
> Yaron,
>
> why "MAY have BPEL'S standard..." instead of "MUST"?
>
> Do you have an example, where it doesn't make sense to have standard
> attributes and elements for an activity?
>
> Gruss / Regards
> Frank Leymann
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:]
> Gesendet: Freitag, 25. März 2005 22:36
> An: wsbpeltc
> Betreff: [wsbpel] Issue 111 - Proposal For Vote
>
> 111 - Extension Activities
>
> Proposal: Add an extensibleActivity element to hold extension activities
>
> Introduce Section 11.9
>
> New activities can be introduced for use in BPEL by placing them inside
> of the extensibleActivity element. The contents of an extensibleActivity
> element MUST be a single element that MAY have BPEL's
> standard-attributes and standard-elements defined on it. If the element
> contained within the extensibleActivity element is not recognized then
> the unknown activity MUST be treated as if it were an empty activity. In
> all cases however any standard-attributes or standard-elements used on
> the contained activity MUST be treated as defined by this specification.
>
> <extensibleActivity >
> <???? standard-attributes>
> standard-elements
> </????>
> </extensibleActivity>
>
> Schema:
>
> Add to activity group:
> <element name="extensibleActivity" type="bpws:textensibleActivity"/>
>
> Add the following definition:
> <complexType name="textensibleActivity">
> <sequence>
> <any processContents="lax"/>
> </sequence>
> </complexType>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:
>
