- From: Seaborne, Andy <andy.seaborne@hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:07:20 +0100
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: RDF Data Access Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Dan Connolly wrote: > On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 18:05 +0100, Seaborne, Andy wrote: > >>The Schedule of the Web Services Description Working Group is: >> >>Second Last Call / June 2005 >>Candidate Recommendation / October 2005 >>Proposed Recommendation / Early 2006 >> >>In feedback I have received from (HP) people who work more closely with the >>current toolsets for WSDL than I do, it was noted that the change to supporting >>WSDL 1.1 to include 2.0 is not necessary going to be fast or uniform. >> >>How hard would it be to add a non-normative translation to WSDL 1.1 just for the >>SOAP form? > > > Leaving all the procedural matters aside, ... > > I wrote some code to convert our WSDL 2.0 to WSDL 1.1 because the only > tools I could find were WSDL 1.1 > > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/DataAccess/proto-wd/wsdldg.xsl > > I sent mail about it a while ago... > > wsdldg.xsl converts our WSDL 2.0 to WSDL 1.1; hunt for WSDL tools > continues > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2005AprJun/0075 Thanks - I tried the XSLT script but got zero bytes. It's probably my use of Saxon on an XSLT1 script or some such local technology problem. The attachement was useful - I had some success with that with Axis1 and Axis2 until I got to the binding (absence thereof). Andy > > >> Are there features of WSDL 2.0 being used that preclude this? > > > I didn't find any. > > >> Andy >> >> >>
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2005 17:08:50 UTC