- From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 17:34:22 -0800
- To: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
- Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
The text quoted below has become i034; the rest of the proposal was accepted on Monday's call, and i019 is closed. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i034 On Nov 8, 2004, at 4:48 PM, Hugo Haas wrote: > - the main issue with the action MIH comes from: > > An action may be explicitly or implicitly associated with the > corresponding WSDL definition. Section 3.3 below describes the > mechanisms of association. > > However, section 3.3 describes a WSDL 1.1-specific mechanism. If the > service has a WSDL 2.0 description, another mechanism needs to be > used, which is actually defined by the WSDL 2.0 specification[4]. > > I would therefore propose that section 3.3 be introduced as a > mapping of a WSDL 1.1 description to an action URI, that we note > that for WSDL 2.0, the message reference component URI should be > used. > > This leaves us with an interesting issue: if there is a WSDL 1.1 and > WSDL 2.0 description available, which is the implicit value of the > action property? If in a year's time we release WSDL 2.1, what > happens? I believe that there is an implicit value of the action URI > recognized by the recipient of the addressing information for the > description of the service made in each version of WSDL. Those are > equivalent for the purpose of our specification. -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems
Received on Wednesday, 17 November 2004 01:34:49 UTC