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

RE: issue 60: Text in the WSDL spec inconsistency about optional parts

From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 08:07:50 -0700
Message-ID: <2E33960095B58E40A4D3345AB9F65EC107B0A6D4@win-msg-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

This one seems editorial in nature (rather than proposing design
changes). 

-----Original Message-----
From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 11:32 PM
To: WS-Desc WG (Public)
Subject: issue 60: Text in the WSDL spec inconsistency about optional
parts


(I'm reconciling issues lists.)

I would like to close the following issue from the issues list
as its redundant in the presence of another issue in the part1
document which has already been (indicated below):

 <issue>
    <issue-num>60</issue-num>
    <title>Text in the WSDL spec inconsistency about optional
parts</title>
    <locus>Spec</locus>
    <requirement>n/a</requirement>
    <priority>Editorial</priority>
    <topic></topic>
    <status>Active</status>
    <originator><a href="mailto:pyendluri@webmethods.com">Prasad
Yendluri</a></originator>
    <responsible>Unassigned</responsible>
    <description>
    [<a
href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jun/0011.html"
>ema
il</a>]

    <p>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:</p>

    <p>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.</p>

    <p>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 =&gt; optional w/ cardinality)
       are really not optional.  We need to fix the examples
       accordingly.</p>
    </description>
    <proposal>
    </proposal>
    <resolution>
    </resolution>
  </issue>

The related issue in the part1 doc is:

<issue id="issue-message-parts" status="closed">
  <head>Should the message part mechanism be extended to support
optional
        parts etc.?</head>
  In WSDL 1.1, a message can only be defined to be a sequence of parts.
  It is not possible to indicate that certain parts may be optional,
  may occur multiple times, etc.? Should we do that? Overlapping with
  XML Schema's mechanisms is an obvious concern.
  <source>Sanjiva Weerawarana</source>
  <resolution>We will consider this for WSDL 2.0 in conjunction
  with the resolution for issue "issue-eliminate-message." If
  &lt;message&gt; is retained in WSDL 2.0, then this issue becomes
  interesting; otherwise its a non-issue.</resolution>
</issue>

Are there any objections?

Sanjiva.
Received on Thursday, 20 June 2002 11:08:23 GMT

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