- From: David Illsley <david.illsley@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:40:31 +0000
- To: "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
- Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2006 10:41:17 UTC
I think its an editorial issue which should be fixed by adding the delimiter to Example 4-8. Changing Example 4-7 would IMO break implementations based on our brand new Last Call doc... David David Illsley Web Services Development MP127, IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN +44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049) david.illsley@uk.ibm.com "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com> Sent by: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 21/02/2006 10:23 To <public-ws-addressing@w3.org> cc Subject Contradiction in WSDL Binding I happened to be reading the WSDL Binding - you know, as one does. Noticed a tiny contradiction between Example 4-7 "Structure of default wsa:Action IRI for faults", which specifies the presence of a delimiter between the operation name and the literal string "Fault", and Example 4-8 "Example WSDL...", which shows a fault action without that delimiter. Fix is either to eliminate the delimiter specified in Example 4-7, or to add the delimiter in Example 4-8 - the latter is the simpler change. It means the fault action would become: http://example.com/stockquote/StockQuotePortType/GetLastTradePrice/Fault/Error Should we raise this as a CR issue? Or call it editorial licence? Tony Rogers CA, Inc Senior Architect, Development tony.rogers@ca.com BTW: technically, Example 4-7 isn't an example, but that's being REALLY pedantic...
Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2006 10:41:17 UTC