W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > February 2006

Re: Contradiction in WSDL Binding

From: David Illsley <david.illsley@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:40:31 +0000
To: "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF169BB6C6.316E0967-ON8025711C.0039923C-8025711C.003AA1DB@uk.ibm.com>
I think its an editorial issue which should be fixed by adding the 
delimiter to Example 4-8.
Changing Example 4-7 would IMO break implementations based on our brand 
new Last Call doc...

David

David Illsley
Web Services Development
MP127, IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
+44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049)
david.illsley@uk.ibm.com




"Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
21/02/2006 10:23

To
<public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
cc

Subject
Contradiction in WSDL Binding






I happened to be reading the WSDL Binding - you know, as one does. 
 
Noticed a tiny contradiction between Example 4-7 "Structure of default 
wsa:Action IRI for faults", which specifies the presence of a delimiter 
between the operation name and the literal string "Fault", and Example 4-8 
"Example WSDL...", which shows a fault action without that delimiter.
 
Fix is either to eliminate the delimiter specified in Example 4-7, or to 
add the delimiter in Example 4-8 - the latter is the simpler change. It 
means the fault action would become:
 
http://example.com/stockquote/StockQuotePortType/GetLastTradePrice/Fault/Error
 
Should we raise this as a CR issue? Or call it editorial licence?
 
Tony Rogers
CA, Inc
Senior Architect, Development
tony.rogers@ca.com
 
BTW: technically, Example 4-7 isn't an example, but that's being REALLY 
pedantic...
 
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2006 10:41:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:11 GMT