Issue:soap:body binding description confusing when use is "literal"

I tried to look for an issue that might have captured this but, there
does not seem to be any that capture this specific issue. I am hoping
that this would be a simple case of someone on the list giving the
correct (and intended) interpretation of the text in the spec that I
draw attention to below:

"Section 3.5 soap:body (binding)

The soap:body binding element provides information on how to assemble
the different message parts inside the Body element of the SOAP message.



   * If the operation style is rpc each part is a parameter or a return
     value and appears inside a wrapper element within the body
     (following Section 7.1 of the SOAP specification). The wrapper
     element is named identically to the operation name and its
     namespace is the value of the namespace attribute. Each message
     part (parameter) appears under the wrapper, represented by an
     accessor named identically to the corresponding parameter of the
     call. Parts are arranged in the same order as the parameters of the
     call.
   * If the operation style is document there are no additional
     wrappers, and the message parts appear directly under the SOAP Body
     element. "

This I understand. However later in the same section we have the
following text.

"If use is literal, then each part references a concrete schema
definition using either the element or type attribute. In the first
case, the element referenced by the part will appear directly under the
Body element (for document style bindings) or under an accessor element
named after the message part (in rpc style). In the second, the type
referenced by the part becomes the schema type of the enclosing element
(Body for document style or part accessor element for rpc style). "

The confusing part (to me) here is the last sentence above. What is this
really saying for "document" style? Is this same as a part with the
"schema type" as given by the "type" attribute of the part will appear
directly under the body or something else? That is, this is same as the
"element" case but for the fact the an element of the "type" must appear
in the body as opposed to the element itself (as in the "element" case)?

I have seen people interpret this to mean something radical. E.g. from
the WSDL yahoo groups list (see:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wsdl/message/753):

                >So for a document/literal operation the XSD type
referenced by the message
                > part becomes the schema type of the SOAP Body element.

                > Presumably this mean that a document/literal operation
can only reference a single
                > message part that uses the 'type' attribute to refer
to an XSD type? Can
                > the message only have one such type?

This seems to be wrong interpretation of the text (undelined above). Any
comments?

Thanks, Prasad