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

RE: question about interface/operation/@style and interface/@styl eDefault

From: Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 10:12:22 -0500
Message-ID: <CB1FF0A474AEA84EA0206D5B05F6A4CB06B7B573@S1001EXM02.macromedia.com>
To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org


+1

No reason why style can't apply to other type systems.

--
Tom Jordahl
Macromedia


-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 11:02 PM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: question about interface/operation/@style and
interface/@styleDefault


With the decision to support multiple type systems yesterday, I'd
like to clarify how it affects @style. The current wording for
@style is specific to schema languages which define elements:

=====
If the {style} property of an Interface Operation component has a
value then that value (a URI) implies the rules that were used
to define the {message} properties of all {message reference}s 
within that component. Note that the property MAY not have any
value. If this property has a given value, then the rules 
implied by that value (such as rules that govern the schemas)
MUST be followed or it is an error.
=====

(Replace {message} by {element} when u read the above.)

Do we want to generalize this to say something like "{element}
or other property which defines the content of the message"?
It seems to me that we should as otherwise we'd be short-changing
the support for multiple schema languages.

IMO it is still fine for the *RPC style* to be defined specifically
for XML Schema (as it is now). 

Comments?

Sanjiva.
Received on Friday, 5 March 2004 10:12:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:30 GMT