- From: Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 14:20:07 -0800
- To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Cc: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
Quoting from section 2 [1]:
By convention, when specifying the mapping rules from the XML Infoset
representation of a component to the component itself, an optional
property that is absent in the component in question is described as
being “empty”.
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-wsdl20-20060106/#component_model
Thanks,
Roberto
Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> Table 2-15 says:
>
> {address
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-wsdl20-20060106/#property-Endpoint.address#property-Endpoint.address>}
>
>
>
> The actual value of the |address| //attribute information item// if
> present, otherwise empty.
>
> Which implies the property is always present, even if it has an empty
> value. Yet the prose in 2.15.1 says:
>
> The {address
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-wsdl20-20060106/#property-Endpoint.address#property-Endpoint.address>}
> property is optional to allow for means other than IRIs to be used, e.g.
> a WS-Addressing Endpoint Reference [/WSA 1.0 Core
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-wsdl20-20060106/#WSA-Core#WSA-Core>/]. It
> is also possible that in certain scenarios an address will not be
> required, in which case this property may not be present.
>
> · {address} OPTIONAL. An //xs:anyURI//. This //xs:anyURI// MUST
> be an absolute IRI as defined by [/IETF RFC 3987
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-wsdl20-20060106/#RFC3987#RFC3987>/]. If
> present, the value of this attribute represents the network address at
> which the service indicated by the parent Service
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-wsdl20-20060106/#component-Service#component-Service>
> component's {interface
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-wsdl20-20060106/#property-Service.interface#property-Service.interface>}
> property is offered via the binding referred to by the {binding
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-wsdl20-20060106/#property-Endpoint.binding#property-Endpoint.binding>}
> property.
>
>
>
> I think this implies that the “otherwise empty” is inconsistent and
> should be removed or changed to “otherwise the property is absent” or
> somesuch.
>
>
>
> <From>*Jonathan Marsh*</ From>**
>
> <ReplyTo>jmarsh@microsoft.com <mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com></ ReplyTo>
>
> <RelatesTo>http://spaces.msn.com/members/auburnmarshes/</ RelatesTo>
Received on Friday, 13 January 2006 22:20:14 UTC