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

Re: Confusion between binding and element names

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:09:29 +0100
To: ygoland@bea.com
Cc: WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1077116969.26480.69.camel@localhost>

+1, my reason being that I dislike different semantics for elements with
the same qnames.

Jacek

On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 00:08, Yaron Goland wrote:
> Some of the children of the interface and binding XML elements, specifically
> the XML elements operation, input, output, infault and outfault, use the
> same names but have different, although related, meanings in the two
> locations.
> 
> It would be friendlier to those writing WSDLs, especially to those talking
> about WSDLs, if slightly different names were used.
> 
> For example, one can imagine that the names for the children of interface
> would stay the same but the children of binding would change to
> bindOperation, bindInput, bindOutput, bindInFault, bindOutFault and
> bindMessageReference.
> 
> This small change would make simple sentences such as "The second infault
> has an error" much clearer as one would know that an interface was being
> discussed.
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 
> 		Yaron
> 
Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2004 10:09:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:15:02 UTC