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

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

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 18:18:37 -0700
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E0145D09A@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>


I wondered why I'd not got back a copy!

Gudge

-----Original Message-----
From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 6:12 PM
To: Martin Gudgin
Subject: Re: issue 43: Does order matter for the child elements of
"definitions"?

Hi Gudge,

Can u post this on the list please?

Thanks,

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 8:32 PM
Subject: RE: issue 43: Does order matter for the child elements of
"definitions"?


> I agree, mandating an order for the top-level constructs doesn't give
us
> anything and makes life harder for WSDL writers. We should change the
> spec ( and the schema ) to allow any order.
>
> Gudge
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 11:39 PM
> To: WS-Desc WG (Public)
> Subject: issue 43: Does order matter for the child elements of
> "definitions"?
>
>
> 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 21:19:10 GMT

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