W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > July 2002

RE: WSDL 1.2: Updated draft (June 30) - typos and minor errors

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 09:12:50 -0700
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E01FC616C@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Liu Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com>
Cc: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Don't worry, when I'm done with the abstact model, and the mapping from
that model to the XML syntax, it will be nice and clean

Gudge

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Jordahl [mailto:tomj@macromedia.com] 
Sent: 02 July 2002 15:42
To: 'Jean-Jacques Moreau'; 'Liu Kevin'
Cc: 'Sanjiva Weerawarana'; 'WS-Desc WG (Public)'
Subject: RE: WSDL 1.2: Updated draft (June 30) - typos and minor errors




I noticed this problem with the target namespace wording was well.
+1 to rewording this.

--
Tom Jordahl
Macromedia




Jean-Jacques wrote:
> >>>Section 2 (text above the box for "issue-require-targetnamspace")  
> >>>the
> new text for targetNamespace is not very clean - maybe just for me. I 
> believe the resolution is to make defintion@targetNamespace required. 
> All children elements defined by this wsdl document belongs to this 
> namespace. I know we are talking about abstract model here, but if map

> to the wsdl elements, the wording reads like wsdl1.2 requires that 
> every individual child elements, except type element,  have a 
> targetNamespace attribute. I don't believe that's what we meant.
>
> Again, this may be just my own interpretation, other people may 
> interpret differently. To avoid future confusion,  can we make the 
> wording more straight-forward?

I think you're right, this needs rewording. NOT done.
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2002 12:13:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:21 GMT