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

issue 34: Should portTypes be extensible?

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:49:24 +0600
Message-ID: <022501c2184b$b4100dc0$82a6a409@lankabook2>
To: "WS-Desc WG \(Public\)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I would like to close issue 34 as redundant:

  <issue>
    <issue-num>34</issue-num>
    <title>Should portTypes be extensible?</title>
    <locus>Spec</locus>
    <requirement>n/a</requirement>
    <priority>Design</priority>
    <topic></topic>
    <status>Active</status>
    <originator><a href="mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com">Sanjiva
Weerawarana</a></originator>
    <responsible>Unassigned</responsible>
    <description>
    [<a
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2002Apr/0029.html">ema
il</a>]
    Some users have asked that portTypes be extensibile.
    We need to carefully consider whether that is a good thing or not.
    </description>
    <proposal>
    </proposal>
    <resolution>
    </resolution>
  </issue>

The following closed issue in the part1 doc makes the above redundant:

<issue id="issue-portType-extensibility" status="closed">
  <head>Should portTypes be extensible?</head>
  Some users have asked that portTypes be extensibile. We need to
  carefully consider whether that is a good thing or not.
  <source>Sanjiva Weerawarana</source>
  <resolution>Closed as this is covered by overall
extensibility.</resolution>
</issue>

Any objections?

Sanjiva.
Received on Thursday, 20 June 2002 07:15:36 GMT

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