W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > December 2003

Issue 8 (editorial): can we close?

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:41:36 -0800
Message-ID: <DF1BAFBC28DF694A823C9A8400E71EA202011CC9@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Issue 8 [1] titled "Inconsistency in definition of attribute
extensibility states "In section 2.1, extensibility is explicitly stated
for all the elements, but not for attributes.  In the WSDL Schema,
PartType is extended from "openAtts". This means anyAttributes can be
defined in addition to the three optional attributes specified for Part
(name, type, element). Though it mentions in section 2.3 that "other
message-typing attributes may be defined as long as they use a namespace
different from that of WSDL", it would be better for those who use the
grammar as a convenient reference if this is also reflected in section
2.1."

It appears that the section numbers are from the WSDL 1.1 spec, which
has pseudo-syntax for the whole WSDL 1.1 document structure.  This
pseudo-syntax uses comments to indicate where element extensibility is
allowed (everywhere).  There is no notation in the pseudo-syntax for
attribute extensions (also allowed everywhere).

In our latest draft, we have pseudo-syntax for each component, rather
than for the whole document.  Our pseudo-syntax does not call out
extensibility points, either for elements or attributes, since they are
ubiquitous.  Section describes both element and attribute extensibility.

I suggest that we have met the spirit of this comment, providing equal
billing between the descriptions element and attribute extensibility,
and should close it.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x8
Received on Wednesday, 10 December 2003 16:41:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:27 GMT