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

RE: WSDL2.0 Last Call comments

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 14:40:33 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A50530F09D@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Steve Ross-Talbot" <steve@enigmatec.net>
Cc: "WS-Choreography List" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>, "W3C Group" <w3c-ws-cg@w3.org>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I'll enter all these as last call comments except #6, which is simply a
statement of support for the status quo.  Some of your items, for
instance #4, could use some additional explanation; what specifically is
unclear about wsdlLocation?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Ross-Talbot [mailto:steve@enigmatec.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 1:10 AM
> To: Jonathan Marsh
> Cc: WS-Choreography List; W3C Group; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: WSDL2.0 Last Call comments
> 
> Dear Jonathan,
> 
> I am writing to you on behalf of the W3C Choreography Working Group.
As
> promised we have reviewed the WSDL2.0
> documents at our Face to Face meeting. Our comments and requirements
> are as follows:
> 
> 1. We would like to see the Web Services Description Working Group
> define bindings for the 4 remaining MEPs for which
>      no bindings have been defined or we would like them removed from
> the specification.
> 
> 2. WSDL2.0 is unclear about it's support for attachment technologies
> and this is a concern to us. We would like to see
>      some clarity with respect to what and how attachment technologies
> will be supported. We have spent some time looking
>      at the WS-I AP1.0 profile  as an exemplar and would greatly
> appreciate clarity on what you intend to support and how it
>      might differ from AP1.0.
> 
> 3. We recommend that a section is added describing the differences
> between WSDL1.0 and WSDL2.0. This should
>      include differences in MEP's between the two specifications.
> 
> 4. We seek clarification in the text of WSDL2.0 as to the use of
> wsdlLocation.
> 
> 5. We seek clarification in the text of WSDL 2.0 for component-to-XML
> InfoSet mapping, to address issues such as how
>       serialization is performed in a manner compatible with XML
Schema.
> 
> 6. As we indicated in a previous letter to you [url] we are pleased to
> see the presence of F&P and intend to use this in our
>      work.
> 
> 7. We noted that the previous composistors work within WSD WG has not
> made it into the last call document, and similar
>      to point 6, this is a capability that we need and would use if it
> were present.
> 
> I you have any questions or wish to seek clarification from the Web
> Services Choreography WG please do not hesitate to
> contact us.
> 
> Best of luck in your endeavours.
> 
> Kind Regards
> 
> Steve Ross-Talbot
> co-Chair W3C Web Services Choreography
> 
> C: +44 7855 268 848
> H: +44 1273 491841
> www.enigmatec.net
> 
Received on Tuesday, 5 October 2004 21:41:17 GMT

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