- 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