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

Re: Idle question

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:35:16 +0600
Message-ID: <07be01c4bbc5$37c49cc0$c24f4109@LANKABOOK>
To: "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

OK what I meant is this: If we do *nothing extra* then the wsdl11 
namespace will not be recognized as WSDL by a WSDL 2.0 processor.
Thus any WSDL 1.1 element that's placed in a WSDL 2.0 document
will be just an extension element.

If someone attempts to import WSDL 1.1 (or XSD or YourML or MyML)
stuff via wsdl20:import then it will fail as we have specifically
defined import semantics at the component model level and there
are no WSDL 2.0 components there.

If someone attempts to include I guess the same thing will occur,
but I have to read that part again to see what we say precisely.

Gudge, you did worked on most of the import/include stuff - do 
you agree?

Amy, does this make sense? I also do not want to support WSDL 1.1
import/include - it simply doesn't make sense as we'd have to
define an equivalence relation to make it go. ARGH! More work!!

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 12:48 AM
Subject: Re: Idle question


> 
> I don't understand that answer.
> 
> I'm working on implementation, and one of the areas of implementation is
> import (and include; *sigh* that include was included).  It is natural
> enough that WSDL 1.1 cannot import WSDL 2.0.  Is it true that WSDL 2.0
> cannot import or include WSDL 1.1?  This seems a painful limitation
> (although it makes the work go faster).  If it *can*, what are the
> semantics of the included components?
> 
> It would probably be enough to say "WSDL 2.0 documents cannot import or
> include WSDL 1.1 documents" to clarify the situation.  I *do* think we
> need a clarification, though, because as it stands, the import/include
> descriptions talk about including WSDL, not just WSDL 2.0.
> 
> Amy!
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:11:37 +0600
> Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > You can of course import it but since those elems would simply be
> > extension elements ...
> > 
> > Sanjiva.
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
> > To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 9:47 PM
> > Subject: Idle question
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Heylas,
> > > 
> > > So, can a WSDL 2.0 document import or include a WSDL 1.1 document?
> > > 
> > > Presumably, 1.1 cannot import 2.0.
> > > 
> > > Amy!
> > > -- 
> > > Amelia A. Lewis
> > > Senior Architect
> > > TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
> > > alewis@tibco.com
> 
> 
> -- 
> Amelia A. Lewis
> Senior Architect
> TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
> alewis@tibco.com
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2004 01:35:56 GMT

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