RE: proposal: make binding/operation/(input|output)/@messageLabel optional

i'm happy to +1 this so long as the default values for the 
messageLabel attribute are 'obvious'. 

That is I don't want to have to interpret complex rules to infer the 
default values for these attributes based upon the presence or order 
of input and output elements within a binding/operation. 

I'm puzzled about the impact on each of the MEPs identified in part 2
as well as any MEPs added in the future. What would tip the balance 
for me is a simple cheat-sheet: a table of the possible default 
messageLabel default values being considered. 

Paul


-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Tom Jordahl
Sent: 18 March 2004 15:00
To: 'Sanjiva Weerawarana'; 'www-ws-desc@w3.org'
Subject: RE: proposal: make
binding/operation/(input|output)/@messageLabel optional




+1 to making the messageLabel attribute optional on the binding operations.

--
Tom Jordahl
Macromedia Server Development

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 5:49 AM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: proposal: make binding/operation/(input|output)/@messageLabel
optional


I know we discussed this before but the way things are is not
consistent. If there's exactly one input or output message in a
MEP there's no need to have the @messageLabel in binding either.

Can we please re-consider this? Look at the syntax summary
section and you'll see what I mean:

http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html#Syntax-S
ummary

I'd like to make the attribute optional and keep the same rules
as with interface/operation/(input|output)/@messageLabel.

Thanks,

Sanjiva.

Received on Thursday, 18 March 2004 10:17:04 UTC