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

Fw: request for clarification on closing issue 211

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 02:54:45 +0600
Message-ID: <1f4b01c47352$c9c3ee70$2e694109@LANKABOOK>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Oops, sent to the wrong list! Thanks to MikeC for telling me ..

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
To: <www-ws@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 2:34 AM
Subject: request for clarification on closing issue 211


> I'm incorporating the resolution for 211 which was to incorporate
> the following text from Mark Nottingham to section 2.11.1 of part1:
> 
>       <p>For each Binding Message Reference in the {message
>       references} property of a Binding Operation component, there
>       MUST be an Interface Message Reference with the same {message
>       label} and {direction} properties in the corresponding Interface
>       Operation. Note that the converse is not required; i.e., there
>       need not be a Binding Message Reference corresponding to each
>       Interface Message Reference in the Interface Operation
>       component.</p>
> 
> I'm ok with the first part of this, but the note is a bit misleading-
> it is indeed a requirement that every message defined in the
> interface operation component MUST be bound! However, that may 
> occur thru default rules .. which means it doesn't have to appear
> explitly in the syntax, but it better appear in the component model
> as a bound message!
> 
> It seems to me that the last sentence above is too strong and should
> be dropped. I think I've already mentioned that to me even the first
> sentence is of dubious value, but if people want that that's fine. 
> 
> Sanjiva.
Received on Monday, 26 July 2004 16:56:12 GMT

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