RE: Clarify whether Parts 2 & 3 MUST be supported

Thank you for the comment below, and for your patience with us in
resolving it.  We tracked the comment below as Issue LC49 [1].  The WG
agreed to reword 8.1 as follows: 
  "An element information item whose namespaces name is "...wsdl" and
whose local part id definitions conforms to this specification if it is
a valid according to the XML schema for that element as defined by this
specification (uri to schema) and additionally adheres to all the
constraints contained in this specification family and conforms to the
specifications of any extensions contained in it."
+ add conformance sections to each of the bindings.
+ 8.3, clarify that "this specification" means Part 1.
+ adding a note advising extension specification authors to have a clear
statement of conformance.

The fix should be in the latest editor's draft at [2].

If you agree with our disposition of your comment, we'd like you to
acknowledge it within two weeks; otherwise we will assume you are
satisfied.  The WG plans to enter a second (short) Last Call period in
the near future, and we invite you to review that publication as well.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:public-ws-desc-
>] On Behalf Of David Booth
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 1:53 PM
> To:
> Subject: Clarify whether Parts 2 & 3 MUST be supported
> Part 1 Section 8.3[1] should clarify whether the Part 2 Predefined
> Extensions and Part 3 Bindings must be supported by a conformant WSDL
> processor.  Section 8.3 says that "a conformant WSDL processor MUST
> accept any legal WSDL document as defined by this specification", but
> it
> isn't clear whether "this specification" refers to all of Parts 1, 2 &
> 3
> taken together, or only Part 1.
> References
> 1.
> --
> David Booth
> W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard

Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2005 20:21:31 UTC