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: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 01:21:53 -0700
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E0145CCF5@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Liu Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com>
Cc: "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Please look at the context of my comment. Jean-Jacques and Tom's
comments were specifically around the relationship between target
namespace and WSDL components. All I was saying is that that mapping
will be clean, obvious, non-ambiguous. I was not making any claims about
the spec as a whole. 

That said, I would hope that the spec will at least be clearer than it
is currently. If we don't AIM to produce a spec that is clear and
consistent then you are corrent, we never will.

As an aside, you seem unconvinced that an abstract model will be useful,
yet for some reason you have taken it upon yourself to attempt to
produce one, even though that is work that I offered to do, why is this?

I thought I agreed to produce an abstract model for presentation to the
WG by July 12th, everyone seemed happy with that schedule, what has
changed in the mean time?


-----Original Message-----
From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] 
Sent: 04 July 2002 03:56
To: Martin Gudgin; Tom Jordahl; Jean-Jacques Moreau; Liu Kevin
Cc: WS-Desc WG (Public)
Subject: Re: WSDL 1.2: Updated draft (June 30) - typos and minor errors

"Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com> writes:
> 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

With all due respect Gudge, this is an empty statement. You're pointing
to something that doesn't exist and saying "it'll be much better." Like
they say: "I'll believe it when I see it."

In the meantime, FWIW, I have changed the wording of the relevant
paragraphs to try to make the intent clear(er).

I have yet to read any non-trivial spec that has been 100% clear, 
consistent, without ambiguities and understandable. I doubt we 
will produce such a beast either.

Received on Friday, 5 July 2002 04:22:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:39 UTC