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

Defining the meaning of wsdl:required in terms of the document, rather than a processor

From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 15:56:53 -0500
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-Id: <1099688213.3178.40.camel@nc6000.w3.org>

Yesterday I accepted an action item:
[NEW] ACTION: dbooth to define the meaning of wsdl:required in terms of
the document, rather than processor behavior.

I mentioned on the teleconference that I thought we already had wording
in the spec to do this, but I wasn't sure.  I've checked, and we do.

Part 1 section 3.1.1 says:
[[
A mandatory extension is an extension that MAY change the meaning of the
element to which it is attached, such that the meaning of that element
is no longer governed by this specification. Instead, the meaning of an
element containing a mandatory extension is governed by the meaning of
that extension. Thus, the definition of the element's meaning is
delegated to the specification that defines the extension.
]]

I think that pretty well covers it.  If desired, we might wish to add a
note like:
[[
It therefore follows that if a WSDL processor does not recognize or
understand a mandatory extension that it encounters in a WSDL document,
the WSDL processor will have no assurance of understanding the meaning
of that WSDL document as a whole.
]]


-- 

David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Received on Friday, 5 November 2004 20:56:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:33 GMT