Re: WSDL 1.2 Bindings

Thank you for your comments.

Regarding your first issue, I think this is covered by issue #24 
already [1]. Please let us know if you think otherwise.

Regarding examples, the intent is to provide a primer that will, 
in particular, contain examples.

Regarding interoperability, you may be aware that one of the 
deliverables of this WG will be a test collection.

Jean-Jacques.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x24

> Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 15:42:55 -0700
> Message-ID: <AD77174F26BFD411BE7B00508BFDF5621A85D2@newbury.netsilicon.com>
> From: "Jones, Matthew" <MJones@NetSilicon.com>
> To: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
> Subject: WSDL 1.2 Bindings
> 
> 
> Section 2.5:  I find the explanation of use="literal" versus use="encoded" to be pretty hard to understand.  I would suggest rewriting the sections and in addition make sure that the terms and concepts used are properly defined before being used.  Finally there should be an appendix that should contain example fragments of WSDL and the resultant SOAP that goes across the wire.  This would also make WSDL contructs much clearer much clearer.
> 
> This actually leads to an area where the WSDL specifications are lacking and that is testability.  Lets say that two products generate incompatible implementations for example on the implementation of "use" from above how would the implementations use the specification to resolve the incompatibility?  Also let us say that someone wants to claim WSDL compliance how would they make such a claim?  There would need to be either a test suite or a test ability matrix from the specification, neither of which seems to be available.
> 
> 
> Matthew Jones
> mjones@netsilicon.com
>

Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 09:54:15 UTC