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

Re: FW: Action Item 2004-07-01 Solution to 168/R114

From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:18:33 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040715081152.044f34a8@localhost>
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I think Umit was intending to talk about the WSDL 2.0 *spec* requiring it 
of WSDs -- not the WSD *author* requiring it of a particular service.

The question is:  When a service requires its users to support a particular 
mechanism for determining the wsdl:operation name in order to use that 
service, should the WSD author be required to indicate that mechanism as 
wsdl:required in the WSD?  Some think the WSDL 2.0 spec should make this 
requirement in order to prevent the interop issue illustrated by Scenario 
X[1]; some don't.

1. Scenario X:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jun/0300.html
or: http://tinyurl.com/4krve

At 11:01 AM 7/14/2004 -0700, Jonathan Marsh wrote:

>Umit wrote:
> > All I want for Xmas is the marker in my WSDL to require services that
>are > users of such mechanisms to explicitly declare what they really
>rely on.
>
>We provide facilities to mark features and extension elements as
>required for just this purpose.  Specifically, services which demand
>that clients use WS-Addressing or WS-MD for proper operation would
>presumably have to indicate this requirement in the WSDL through a
>required feature or wsdl:required="true".  Isn't this adequate?


-- 
David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Thursday, 15 July 2004 11:18:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:32 GMT