- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:47:21 +0100
- To: "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
- CC: WS Description List <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
I think this pretty much covers it all. Here's my vote (interspersed below). Jean-Jacques. Amelia A. Lewis wrote: > The author's current opinions on the issues listed in the agenda: > > 1a. Support features and properties generally. > 1b. n/a > 1c. Use a universal syntax, in the WSDL namespace. +1 > 2a. Don't split the binding tree. Split the binding tree. I.e. separate pure message serialization from protocol stuff, so the same serialization (e.g. XML) can be shared accross protocols. > 2b. Place concrete binding in the <binding> tree. Both <messageBinding> and <protocolBinding>. > 2c. Immediate child of binding or operation, but not of individual messages. Child of binding, operation and individual messages. Reason for individual message: nodeA sends SOAP message "who are you?", no feature engaged; nodeB responds "******" with security feature engaged. > 2d. <wsdl:feature> with complex content. +1, assuming complex-content = properties + restriction of property value. > 3a. Probably a good idea, but not critical. > 3b. Same as decided for concrete binding. > 3c. Require the check, or do not implement abstract feature requirements. > 3d. Use a simplified version of the concrete syntax. +1
Received on Monday, 20 January 2003 09:48:02 UTC