Issue: Text in the WSDL spec inconsistency about optional parts

Action Item for me from last meeting:

>2002.05.30: Prasad to raise an issue of spec inconsistency about
optional parts.

The examples in Section 5.11 clearly see the need for parts being
optional. However since decided that parts in messages will not be
permitted to be optional, we need to fix the examples. Example 7 carries
in its description:

The response contains multiple parts encoded in the MIME format
multipart/related: a SOAP Envelope containing the current stock price as
a float, zero or more marketing literature documents in HTML format, and
an optional company logo in either GIF or JPEG format.

However, neither the abstract level definitions nor the concrete
bindings shown make the parts (attachments) optional. Specifically the
"optional" company-logo nor the marking literature (zero or more =>
optional w/ cardinality) are really not optional. We need to fix the
examples accordingly.

Regards, Prasad