Re: problem with pattern attribute definition?

(Just happened to drop in on the list and caught this discussion!)

Amelia A Lewis wrote:
>> I recall at one point in time we discussed having a default value. 
>> However, these spec doesn't seem to indicate that we went that way.
> 
> It may have gotten dropped in editing, then.  I remember the argument
> well, if only because I was on the losing side, having fought the good
> fight.  The result of it was that in-out is considered to be so common
> an idiom that it ought *not* require the pattern attribute.  That is,
> we ended up setting the in-out pattern as the default value of the
> pattern attribute, as the above statement indicates.
> 
>> To resolve this, either 1) remove the otherwise clause
> 
> I believe that this would reverse the resolution of the issue that was
> raised.
> 
>> 2) or, define the default and make the attribute OPTIONAL
> 
> I believe that this was the previous resolution.  I think that the
> failure to mark the attribute OPTIONAL is simply an oversight, when the
> previous resolution was implemented.  If someone can identify the
> issue, I believe that the record of the issue and its resolution will
> support this, and I say this as the primary *opponent* of the
> resolution adopted.

I also remember this argument well .. and I actually argued for more 
defaulting: if there was only an <input> in an <operation> default to 
in-only etc..

However, I recall losing that part of the battle :(. So +1 for doing what 
Amy recalls- the default value of @pattern is in-out, no matter what's 
inside the <operation>.

Bye,

Sanjiva.
-- 
Sanjiva Weerawarana, Ph.D.
Founder, Chairman & CEO; WSO2, Inc.; http://www.wso2.com/
email: [email protected]; cell: +94 77 787 6880; fax: +1 509 691 2000

"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform."