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

Re: Features issue summary

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:47:21 +0100
Message-ID: <3E2C0BF9.8080104@crf.canon.fr>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:22 GMT