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

RE: Message attribute optional

From: Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 10:01:16 -0500
Message-ID: <CB1FF0A474AEA84EA0206D5B05F6A4CB06765238@S1001EXM02.macromedia.com>
To: "'Jacek Kopecky'" <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>, "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: "'WS-Description WG'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

-1 to adding back in the type=".." attribute.

--
Tom Jordahl
Macromedia Server Development

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Jacek Kopecky
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 10:21 AM
To: David Orchard
Cc: WS-Description WG
Subject: Re: Message attribute optional


Ooops, somewhat clashing with my proposal at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0110.html

I forgot about the case where WSDL wants to specify that the body will
be empty. So now we have three scenarios:

1) empty body
2) body containing a single element according to a given schema element
declaration
3) body containing anything at all

we could add

4) body containing data according to a given schema type definition

and that would subsume both 1 and 3. But in fact we've decided before to
only keep element="..." and to drop type="...". Do we special-case
scenarios 1 and/or 3 or do we revisit the decision on scenario 4?

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/




On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 20:56, David Orchard wrote:
> We believe the message attribute should be mandatory.  If the body is
empty
> then that should be explicitly stated not implied by the absence of a
> message attribute.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave
> 
Received on Thursday, 19 February 2004 10:01:32 UTC

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