RE: issues with wsdl:endpoint@address

Thank you for your comments on the WSDL 2.0 spec.  We have successfully
resolved each issue as indicated in-line below.

The latest draft incorporating those fixes is at [1].  If we don't hear
otherwise within two weeks, we will assume these resolutions are
acceptable to you.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-wsdl20-20050510/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liu, Kevin [mailto:kevin.liu@sap.com]
> Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 3:18 PM
> To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Cc: Jonathan Marsh
> Subject: issues with wsdl:endpoint@address
> 
> Issue 1: the spec and the schema is inconsistent.
> 
> In the spec, address is an "optional" attribute of endpoint
> 
>  <endpoint
>           name="xs:NCName"
>           binding="xs:QName"
>           address="xs:anyURI"? >
>       <documentation />?
>       [ <feature /> | <property /> ]*
>     </endpoint>
> 
> The address attribute is not defined in the schema @
> http://www.w3.org/2004/08/wsdl/
> 
> <xs:complexType name="EndpointType" mixed="false">
> - <http://www.w3.org/2004/08/wsdl/#>  <xs:complexContent>
> - <http://www.w3.org/2004/08/wsdl/#>  <xs:extension
> base="wsdl:ExtensibleDocumentedType">
> - <http://www.w3.org/2004/08/wsdl/#>  <xs:choice minOccurs="0"
> maxOccurs="unbounded">
>   <xs:element name="feature" type="wsdl:FeatureType" />
>   <xs:element name="property" type="wsdl:PropertyType" />
>   <xs:any namespace="##other" processContents="lax" minOccurs="1"
> maxOccurs="1" />
>   </xs:choice>
>   <xs:attribute name="name" type="xs:NCName" use="required" />
>   <xs:attribute name="binding" type="xs:QName" use="required" />
>   </xs:extension>
>   </xs:complexContent>
> </xs:complexType>

Tracked as LC62a [2], the WG affirmed @address is optional on purpose,
and agreed to fix the schema.
 
[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC62a

> Issue2: why the address attribute is optional? The spec doesn't say
> anything about under what situation the address attribute may be left
> out. What's an endpoint without a network address?

Tracked as LC62b [3], the WG agreed to add an editorial fix to clarify
the specification why it is optional intentionally (EPR extensibility,
non-URI address extensibility, late-binding, etc.).

[3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC62b

> Best Regards,
> Kevin
>

Received on Friday, 13 May 2005 19:26:58 UTC