W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2007

Re: Duplicate @binding, @address on endpoint

From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 10:32:55 -0500
To: Ramkumar Menon <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-ID: <9752723A83CE3E8B65B4C40E@xerom.local>

Dear Ram,

The first of these strikes me as hand-holding.  Sure, one can do silly 
things with WSDL, and we don't prevent it.  I don't think that we need to 
issue even a warning about this, frankly.  (If we do, could we recommend 
that processors issue warnings in Python-speak or Seussian verse?)

As to the second, the assertions about best practices in another 
specification developed by a different organization with no ties to W3C 
seems to me entirely out of scope for WSDL 2.0.  WSI will be able to 
profile WSDL 2.0 itself, when/if it wants to.  Definitely not our job.

Amy!
(speaking for herself/her company, not the working group)
--On February 7, 2007 5:41:50 PM -0800 Ramkumar Menon 
<ramkumar.menon@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Gurus,
>
> Two questions.
> 1) Is it a valid use-case [even if its possible to model] to have a WSDL
> 2.0 document that has two endpoints that possess identical values for
> "binding" and "address" attributes [but with different names] ? If not,
> we could have an "SHOULD" assertion that covers this.
>
> 2) Is it possible for the User to model WSDL 2.0 documents that are not
> WS-I BP compliant ?
>    If so, does it make sense for the Validator to emit warnings on
> incompatibility ?
>
> I am interested in knowing your thoughts on these points.
>
> rgds,
> Ram



-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com
Received on Thursday, 8 February 2007 15:33:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:46 GMT