Re: Extensions

"Sedukhin, Igor" <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com> writes:
> 
>>If needed we can put an ed note in the working draft saying we're
>> considering adding more flexibility and see whether we get feedback
>> asking for it.
> 
> By the time we get feedback, it may be too late to make it flexible.
> By then all WSDL processors will already be implementing logic that
> we have spec'ed out.

Based on first working draft? I don't think people will jump so fast to 
adopt all this stuff. In any case, WDs are meant for getting feedback
and showing direction AFAIK.

> I'm also concerned by the complexity of Jeffrey's wordings. May be,
> at the initial stages of defining extensions we can get a simple 
> explanation of what it means before we get into formal 
> specifications. I suggest adding this clause:
> 
> "When declaring an extension (explicit), all its elements that
> appear in the WSDL document are by default required for 
> understanding by WSDL processors (i.e. wsdl:required = true). 
> Optional extensions do not have to be declared (implicit) or 
> may be declared specifying wsdl:required = false.
> An extension element may override wsdl:required attribute, 
> in which case the element is required or not regardless of 
> the extension declaration. By default an extension element 
> does not override the wsdl:required attrubute and rules 
> apply according to the extension declaration (explicit 
> or implicit)."
> 
> It does not sound very complex (to me :) and WSDL processor
> implementations may easily take it into account.

Do we have a use-case to justify this level of flexibility in
extensions?

Sanjiva.