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

RE: WSDL 2.0 LC Comments

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2005 13:55:25 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A507D84185@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>

Resolutions to the final issues below:

> > -----
> > Section 2.4.1 defines a {safety} property and a corresponding safe
> > attribute.  These constructs should be removed.  Tooling can't
> analyze
> > developer code for the purpose of automatically setting the safe
> > attribute, so by default "safety" will be set to false.  We expect
> > developers to have little incentive to set the safety property
> > manually,
> > and even when they do we are not convinced they will be able to do
> so
> > correctly.  In addition it's not clear why safety is singled out as
> > the
> > only semantic declaration worthy of inclusion in the WSDL core.
> 
> The WG is still discussing this issue (LC75c) [5].
> 
> [5] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75c

The Working Group agreed to put safety in its own namespace and document
it in the Adjuncts spec, and to modify the HTTP binding defaulting rules
to say that if no method is specified and the @ext:safety attribute is
used in the operation, then the method is GET.

> > -----
> > Appendix D is incomplete and therefore misleading about the amount
> of
> > change required to migrate from WSDL 2.0 to 1.1.  Please complete
> this
> > section.
> 
> The WG is still discussing this comment [32].
> 
> [32] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75x

The Working Group agreed to remove the appendix as you suggest.

Please respond within two weeks if you find these resolutions
unacceptable.
Received on Thursday, 9 June 2005 20:55:52 GMT

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