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

RE: Comments on Part 2, Chapter 6

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:20:10 -0700
Message-ID: <37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E803D638C7@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>

Thanks for your comments, and apologizes for reporting our resolution so belatedly.  Resolutions have not yet been incorporated into the document.  

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Arthur Ryman
> Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 3:25 PM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Comments on Part 2, Chapter 6
> 
> 
> More comments:
> 
> 1. In 6. the paragraph:
> 
> "As allowed in [WSDL 2.0 Core Language
> <file:///D:/workspaces/WSD2/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.html#WSDL-PART1>
> ], a Binding
> <file:///D:/workspaces/WSD2/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html#component-Binding>
> component MAY exist without indicating a specific Interface
> <file:///D:/workspaces/WSD2/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html#component-Interface>
> component that it applies to. In this case, there MUST NOT be any Binding
> Operation <file:///D:/workspaces/WSD2/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html#component-
> BindingOperation>  or Binding Fault
> <file:///D:/workspaces/WSD2/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html#component-
> BindingFault>  components present in the Binding
> <file:///D:/workspaces/WSD2/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html#component-Binding>
> component."
> 
> Is not a new requirement. It reproduces a requirement from Part 1. It
> should contain the keywords MAY, MUST NOT since it is not a new
> requirement. It should be rephrased as a note. It is equivalent to the
> Part 1 assertion:
> 
> "If a Binding
> <file:///D:/workspaces/WSD2/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html#component-Binding>
> component specifies any operation-specific binding details (by including
> Binding Operation
> <file:///D:/workspaces/WSD2/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html#component-
> BindingOperation>  components) or any fault binding details (by including
> Binding Fault
> <file:///D:/workspaces/WSD2/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html#component-
> BindingFault>  components) then it MUST specify an interface the Binding
> <file:///D:/workspaces/WSD2/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html#component-Binding>
> component applies to, so as to indicate which interface the operations
> come from. <file:///D:/workspaces/WSD2/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html#Binding-
> 0054-summary>  " which is Binding-0054. Perhaps include a reference to
> Part 1 here.

The WS Description Working Group tracked this issue as a CR034 [1].

The Working Group agreed to reword to avoid MUST NOT, and to link to part 1.
 
[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR034

> 2. In 6.3.1 HTTP Method Selection, there is no value specified when all
> the conditions fail. What is the default? I suggest POST.

The WS Description Working Group tracked this issue as a CR035 [2].

The Working Group agreed to add a fourth bullet to 6.3.1; "Otherwise, the value 'POST'".
 
[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR035


> 3. In 6.5.3 HTTP Header Component the {type definition} component is
> defined as a QName reference to a Type Definition component. This is
> inconsistent with the way refrences are handled in the Core spec. This
> property should be changed to be a Type Definition component, i.e. the
> resolved value of the QName. Note that Table 6-3 correctly decsribes this
> property as a Type Definition, not a QName.

The WS Description Working Group tracked this issue as a CR036 [3].

The Working Group agreed to change the type of the {type definition} property to a Type Definition Component.
 
[3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR036
 
> 4. In 6.7 Serialization Format of Instance Data, Table 6-5, why is the
> application/xml the only mime type that can be returned on the output
> message? The other two types might also be useful in outputs. Multipart
> output seems reasonable.  URL encoded output is less likely.

The WS Description Working Group tracked this issue as a CR037 [4].

The Working Group declined, with your assent, to make any changes in response to this issue.
 
[4] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR037

> Arthur Ryman,
> IBM Software Group, Rational Division
> 
> blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
> phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
> assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
> fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
> mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca
Received on Wednesday, 30 August 2006 21:21:01 GMT

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