W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org > March 2006

WSDL Binding editorial comments

From: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 15:57:07 -0500
To: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org
Message-id: <441F1723.4090101@tibco.com>
Here are a few editorial comments, based on the 3/3/06 draft of the WSDL

    * The third paragraph of section 3.2 (Anonymous Element) states that
      The wsaw:Anonymous element MAY have three distinct values.  RFC
      2119 MAY refers to optionality, so strictly speaking this means
      that the wsaw:Anonymous either has three distinct or it doesn't at
      the discretion of the implementor.  This should probably read "...
      MUST have one of three distinct values ..."
    * Section 3.2.1 defines the {anonymous required} WSDL property that
      reflects the value of the wsaw:Anonymous element.  This may have
      one of the three values "optional", "required" or "prohibited". 
      The name {anonymous required} (unlike wsaw:Anonymous) strongly
      suggests a boolean, and having "prohibited" as a value for
      {anonymous required} seems confusing.  Either calling it
      {anonymous} in line with wsa:Anonymous or something like
      {anonymous EPR constraint} might be less potentially confusing.
    * The first paragraph of section 4.2.1 refers to the [action]
      property of messages and says that if no value is given it reverts
      to the SOAPAction if any.  This isn't referring to the actual
      [action] property of the message in question -- putting something
      in a WSDL doesn't automatically cause messages to contain that
      property.  Instead it's talking about what the endpoint is saying
      it will accept and produce for the [action] property. 
      Unfortunately, I'm not sure how the wording can be improved (but I
      would take an action to come up with a better wording if need be)
    * If wsaw:Action appears without wsaw:UsingAddressing it's only
      informational.  Do we want to mention that it could indicate a
      desired SOAPAction?  Probably not.
    * Nit: In section 5, we talk about properties being "mandatory" or
      "optional".  "Required" might be better than "mandatory", since
      things like RFC 2119 use "required"/"optional" and not
      "mandatory"/"optional".  On the other hand, WSN ended up changing
      a few instances of "optional" in the case of "optional elements"
      because we didn't think it really matched the RFC 2119 sense.  I
      believe we settled on "can be omitted".  The main issue is whether
      we specifically want use RFC 2119 terms here, specifically don't
      want to use them, or don't care.
Received on Monday, 20 March 2006 20:57:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:28:53 UTC