W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > February 2005

RE: Review of WSDL 2.0 Pt 3 Last Call WD

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 15:50:19 -0800
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A506679D73@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>

The Working Group has resolved the final comment in this batch:

> - Section 2.6 Declaring SOAP Modules
>
> Comment: The relationship between SOAP Modules declared in the binding

> and features declared in the interface is unclear. From the SOAP 1.2 
> Rec (section 3.3): "A  SOAP module realizes zero or more SOAP 
> features". I would expect a similar relationship in WSDL such that a 
> SOAP module in a binding would reference one or more features in the 
> interface, a module being the binding of those features to the 
> protocol.
>

In response to this issue [1] the Working Group agreed to add text
stating that a SOAP abstract feature is also (by definition) an abstract
WSDL feature.  We'll assume you agree with this resolution if we don't
hear from you by the end of February.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC29b


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 1:54 PM
> To: Marc Hadley; public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Review of WSDL 2.0 Pt 3 Last Call WD
> 
> 
> We've resolved another of your comments.
> 
> > > > - Section 3.3 Default Binding Rules
> > > >
> > > > "Mechanisms that are outside the scope of this specification MAY
> > > > modify the serialization format of the instance data
> corresponding
> > to
> > > > the output message. An example of such modification is the
> > combination
> > > > of the serialization as application/x-www-form-urlencoded and
> the
> > > > SOAP-Response Message Exchange Pattern ([SOAP 1.2 Part 2:
> Adjuncts],
> > > > Section 6.3)."
> > > >
> > > > Comment: More detail required here, it's not clear what the
> example
> > is
> > > > trying to illustrate.
> >
> > [See http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC29d]
> >
> > We're still working on this one.
> >
> 
> The Working Group agreed to adopt the clarification proposed in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Sep/0061.html to
> address the clarity issue with this paragraph.  We'll assume you
> accept
> this resolution if we don't hear from you within two weeks.
> 
> Thanks, and we expect to discuss and resolve your remaining issues
> this
> coming week.
> 
Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2005 23:51:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:31 GMT