RE: Revised extensibility proposal

Jean-Jacques,

We don't have to disagree :). In the same paragraph, I further say
"It is a good practice though to declare extensions beforehand, and that should get into the spec wordings."

My point was that we, in this WG, do not *certify* WSDL processors by any means. Someone else may do it.

Then, from the interoperability point of view, both of the proposals are equal.

-- 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: Thursday, May 23, 2002 4:38 AM
To: Sedukhin, Igor
Cc: Jonathan Marsh; www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Re: Revised extensibility proposal


I have to disagree. I think we should have a well-defined processing model that specifies precisely what a conforming WSDL processor should and should not do, otherwise we will end up with non-interoperable implementations.

Jean-Jacques.

"Sedukhin, Igor" wrote:

> 1. It's up to the WSDL processor to accept or ignore just about 
> anything. We cannot mandate the implementation of the processor 
> anyways, no matter what we say in a spec. <snip/>