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

RE: proposal for eliminating <message>

From: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 10:02:19 +0100
Message-ID: <BC28A9E979C56C44BCBC2DED313A447001D75E42@bond.ncl.ac.uk>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

<redfaced>

I know how to admit when I am wrong :-( Working late in to the night it
didn't even occur to me that there isn't a problem with ordering of
arguments because each element in the complexType has a name
attribute!!! Doh! Need to go back to basics :-) Apologies.

</redfaced>

> With all due respect, I think it should be of concern for this group!
> These specs cannot be developed in a vacuum, oblivious of one another.
> I will grant that there shouldn't be excessive concern, but as with
> sister WGs within the W3C, we should be making every effort to
understand
> what others are thinking of doing, building upon WSDL as a foundation
> as does BPEL, as well as ensuring that the WSDL spec is consistent
with
> work that has gone before it...

Perhaps I didn't put it as elegantly as I could have but the reason I
mentioned BPEL was because of my concern the effect such a change will
have to a specification like this. Anyway. I don't disagree with your
comment.


I hope you won't mind if I continued with questions/suggestions on this
new proposal. By rendering my comments wrong you'll be sure that at
least some aspects are beyond doubt.

So, what if I wanted to describe a specification that only used headers
(e.g., for a SOAP actor)? Should the body attribute be optional as well?



Again, apologies for wasting your valuable time on this...

.savas.
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2003 05:02:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:25 GMT