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 17:07:12 +0200
Message-ID: <3CFE2920.9386A388@crf.canon.fr>
To: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
CC: Web Service Description <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Found it now. In the TOC, it's numbered as 5.1  ! Since the TOC and numbering
is now done automatically by XML and the stylesheet, that problem has been
fixed anyway!

Prasad Yendluri wrote:

> Jean-Jacques,
>
> I am referring to the following:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl
>
> Which is same as your [1].
>
> There is a section numbered '5.11 MIME Binding example' in the document (in
> you [1] or the one I listed above). However it occurs right after section
> 5.0 and should actually be section 5.1. Another editorial thing that needs
> to be fixed.
>
> Regards, Prasad
>
> Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
>
> > 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 11:08:17 GMT

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