W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > April 2004

Re: features and requiredness

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:05:54 +0200
To: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
Cc: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040420140554.GE7957@w3.org>
* Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com> [2004-03-18 11:06-0500]
> > We don't currently allow features and props inside <service>.
> Ah, my bad.  I just went back and read the mail about that, and would like
> to propose again (with feeling this time) that we support F&P inside
> <service>.  I believe with the scoping rules laid out in the two messages I
> sent, we have a solid enough foundation to clearly understand what this
> means (F&P are in scope for every interaction with that <service>).

As part of my action item reviewing the Handling Privacy In WSDL 2.0
note[1], I have looked at where using a feature was restrictive when
defining one to indicate a P3P privacy policy applying to data being
exchanged by the Web service.

In addition to not being usable on a service component, one cannot use
a feature on an endpoint component. The use case here was that two
endpoints could be providing the same service with two different
privacy policies.

I also noted that the pseudo-schemas in Part 1 didn't always show that
one could use a feature, e.g. for message reference or fault
reference. I believe that it should be added for all the components
listed in section

Rereading the Handling Privacy In WSDL 2.0 note, I realized that it
wrongly states that one couldn't use a feature an a message reference
or fault reference, which probably comes from reading the



  1. http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/2004/SUBM-p3p-wsdl-20040213/
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/

Received on Tuesday, 20 April 2004 10:16:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:48 UTC