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

issue 43: Does order matter for the child elements of "definitions"?

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:38:34 +0600
Message-ID: <022101c2184b$a98ba3f0$82a6a409@lankabook2>
To: "WS-Desc WG \(Public\)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I would like to propose that we indicate that the order of child
elements of <definitions> is immaterial and close this issue. Given
that we have agreed to use QName references always, this seems to
be the obvious choice.

Sanjiva.

  <issue>
    <issue-num>43</issue-num>
    <title>Does order matter for the child elements of
"definitions"?</title>
    <locus>Spec</locus>
    <requirement>n/a</requirement>
    <priority>Editorial</priority>
    <topic></topic>
    <status>Active</status>
    <originator><a href="mailto:kevin.liu@sap.com">Kevin
Liu</a></originator>
    <responsible>Unassigned</responsible>
    <description>
    [<a
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Feb/0023.html">ema
il</a>]
    [see also issue #10]
    <pre>Section 3.1 SOAP Examples, example 3 lists &lt;types&gt;
as the last element under &lt;definitions&gt;. This is inconsistent
with the schema where &lt;type&gt; is defined as the second of the
sequenced elements of the "definitionsType"; similar issue with
section 4.1 HTTP GET and POST Binding example 6 where &lt;binding&gt;
is put after &lt;service&gt;

References:
 Section 3.1 SOAP Examples, example 3
    Section 4.1 HTTP GET and POST Binding example 6
 A 4.1 WSDL Schema</pre>
    </description>
    <proposal>
    </proposal>
    <resolution>
    </resolution>
  </issue>
Received on Thursday, 20 June 2002 07:15:18 GMT

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