W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > August 2006

FW: typeDefinitions property optional?

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:48:17 -0700
Message-ID: <37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E803D63858@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
Thanks for your comment, and apologizes for reporting our resolution so
belatedly.  The WS Description Working Group tracked this issue as a
CR023 [1].

 

The Working Group accepted your proposal, though this resolution has not
yet been reflected in the latest draft.

 

Unless you let us know otherwise by the end of September, we will assume
you agree with the resolution of this issue.

 

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR023  

 

 

 

________________________________

From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 8:01 PM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: typeDefinitions property optional?

 

Section 2.1.2 defines the typeDefinitions property as optional, but then
states that it contains the build-in simple types from Schema.  I think
the result is that it's really not optional at all.  Should we change it
to REQUIRED?

 

Also, we might also mention in the mapping that this is the minimum,
contrary to the minimum suggested there.

 

 [  Jonathan Marsh  ][  jmarsh@microsoft.com
<mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com>   ][  http://spaces.msn.com/auburnmarshes
<http://spaces.msn.com/auburnmarshes>   ]

 
Received on Wednesday, 30 August 2006 20:48:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:32 GMT