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

RE: Revised extensibility proposal

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 09:37:45 -0700
Message-ID: <330564469BFEC046B84E591EB3D4D59C0634B734@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Sedukhin, Igor" <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Maybe I've misunderstood Roberto's proposal, but I think there is at
least one difference in behavior.  In Roberto's proposal, use of an
attribute or element in a non-wsdl namespace, but not declared as an
extension, results in an error (or "WSDL-not-understood" behavior of
some kind).  In mine, it may safely be ignored.

There are syntactic differences too.  My proposal doesn't have the
wsdl:required attribute, or the required attribute on <wsdl:extension>.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sedukhin, Igor [mailto:Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 9:20 AM
> To: Jean-Jacques Moreau; Jonathan Marsh
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Revised extensibility proposal
> 
> The proposals do not contradict each other. What is there to choose?
+1
> for both then?
> 
> -- Igor Sedukhin .. (Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com)
> -- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 12:08 PM
> To: Jonathan Marsh
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Revised extensibility proposal
> 
> 
> +1 for Jonathan's proposal.
> 
> Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> 
> > I still don't see why a simpler proposal won't work:
> >
> > 1) Open the content model to elements and attributes in other
> > namespaces.
> > 2) Mark required extensions with a <wsdl:extension namespace="..."/>
> > element.
> > 3) An interpreter of the WSDL document, encountering an element or
> > attribute marked as a required extension but not recognizing the
> > namespace of that element, must interpret the entire WSDL document
as
> > "not understood".
> > 4) Certain elements can accept "architected extensions" which means
> > they don't have to be declared using the extension mechanism.  These
> > are not really extensions at all, just boundaries between embedded
> > namespaces.
Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2002 12:38:41 GMT

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