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

Re: Issue: Text in the WSDL spec inconsistency about optional parts

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 14:47:53 +0200
Message-ID: <3CFE0879.62D1847A@crf.canon.fr>
To: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
CC: Web Service Description <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Prasad,

I am confused. There is no section 5.11, AFAIK. Is it section
5.1, WSDL 1.1 [1]? (and not the editor copy at [2]?)

Raised as new issue #60 anyway.

Jean-Jacques.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/NOTE-wsdl-20010315
[2]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/part2/wsdl12-part2.html

Prasad Yendluri wrote:

> 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
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2002 08:49:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:20 GMT