W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > July 2005

Re: LC75f proposal

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 16:26:32 -0400
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF48C983EA.31D6635D-ON85257038.00703810-85257038.00704A61@ca.ibm.com>
Jonathan,

By extension attributes, do you mean attributes that are namespace 
qualified?

Arthur Ryman,
Rational Desktop Tools Development

phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca
intranet: http://labweb.torolab.ibm.com/DRY6/



"Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
07/08/2005 04:22 PM

To
<www-ws-desc@w3.org>
cc

Subject
LC75f proposal







I have an action to craft a proposal that addresses the need to allow
infrastructure attributes on elements using the RPC style.

The bullet in question (Adjuncts 4.1) reads:

  The complex type that defines the body of an input or an output
element MUST NOT
  contain any attributes.

I propose this become:

  The complex type that defines the body of an input or an output
element MUST NOT
  contain any local attributes.  Extension attributes are allowed for
purposes of
  managing the message infrastructure (e.g. adding identifiers to
facilitate digital 
  signatures).  They are not intended to be part of the application data
conveyed by 
  the message.  Note that these attributes are not considered when
describing a
  signature using wrpc:signature.
Received on Friday, 8 July 2005 20:26:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:36 GMT