RE: where are we?

From: Jonathan Marsh [mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com] 
"(1) There is a lot of interest in removing message along the lines that
Roberto has proposed.  However, there is concern that this might make
the bindings more complicated, or at least eliminate shortcuts a binding
could take (HTTP GET binding parts as parameters, for instance).  We're
working up some detailed examples.  My impression is that if nothing
nasty turns up the proposal has a good chance of being accepted."

I agree with Jonathan's summary, though an inertia faction (leaving
message alone) also had support.

In addition, at least some of us wonder how foreign type systems can
really be supported when required to stuff that information into an xsd
complextype. While the "parts" are apparently to be referenced by
pointing at parts within the complextype xsd, we cannot use our
substitution group extension approach with xsd complex types ('cause we
don't control xsd schema...) [At least this is what I gathered from
Gudge-- hope I did not represent him.] So I think that while the
multiplicity of parts (and optionality, and other cardinality related
stuff) seems covered under Roberto's one complex type approach, the
support for foreign type systems is left dangling and unclear. [I don't
myself consider saying "here is an info item that would be a bunch of
base64 cdata" as being support for foreign types...]

Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2003 11:23:45 UTC