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

RE: LC75f proposal

From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 15:56:17 -0700
Message-ID: <2BA6015847F82645A9BB31C7F9D641651BBFDE@uspale20.pal.sap.corp>
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I like the proposal. I have a friendly amendement below, which is
somewhat stronger. (with a lowercase "must")

--umit


> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> Sent: Friday, Jul 08, 2005 1:23 PM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> 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.

How about: 

These attributes must not be considered as part of the application data
that is conveyed by the message. Therefore, they are not included in the
description of a signature by using wrpc:signature. 



> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 8 July 2005 22:56:03 GMT

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