Folks, In review of the draft, it is not clear to me what we are assuming with respect to the presence of an extension in WSDL without using wsdl:required attribute. Do we assume that it is optional (i.e. wsdl:required="false"), or is it undefined? In reading the section about mandatory extensions, it seems that such extensions are assumed to be optional (since they are definitely NOT marked with wsdl:required attribute and considered to be non-mandatory per that section). If this is the semantics, I propose that we include a clarification that the default value for the wsdl:required attribute is false and extensions that appears in a WSDL document are considered to be marked to be optional. If that is not the intended semantics, I would like to know what it means to put an extension in WSDL, not mark it required optional/required and what would that tertiary logic implies? If I have missed a discussion and resolution on this, a pointer to the resolution will be appreciated. Thanks, --umitReceived on Friday, 29 April 2005 23:40:23 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:15:00 GMT