RE: LC75f proposal

Yes.  s/Extension/Namespace-qualified/.  Thanks.

 

________________________________

From: Arthur Ryman [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com] 
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 1:27 PM
To: Jonathan Marsh
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org; www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: LC75f proposal

 


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.