- From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 12:05:52 +0100
- To: <curbera@us.ibm.com>, <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
- Cc: <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, <Arun.Gupta@Sun.COM>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, <public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org>
Paco rather sensibly said: > The problem is essentially: is the WSDL > description required to be exhaustive? I agree that the answer is NO, but I > think this is probably for the WSDL working group to clarify. I agree. I can't see how a WSDL document could ever be exhaustive, e.g. how can I describe that my endpoint is secured using Basic Authentication and your account must be in credit without resorting to the "spec which shall not be named"? And just because we're about to provide a mechanism for describing that WS-Addressing is engaged, why should that invalidate services which happen to have WSDLs that don't make use of it? WSDL is just a description, which can be complete or incomplete as the publisher wishes it to be. OTOH if a WSDL explicitly stated WS-Addressing isn't in use and then the service required it, well that might be a different matter. Paul
Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2005 11:06:02 UTC