RE: Something else to consider

 Umit:
 
 The proposal allows the following:

<attribute name="foo">
    <get body="x:fooType"/>
    <set body="x:barType"/>
</attribute>
 
I think you might be right. But I think the spirit of what Savas and Sanjiva
have said is probably right too. How about a simple syntactic resolution to
Savas's suggestion:
 
<attribute name="ncname" access="get|set|both"
    [(body="qname") | (element="qname")]>
        [<xsd:complexType> ... </xsd:complexType>]
</attribute > 
 
Thus you'd have attribute declarations like:
 
<attribute name="foo" access="set" body="f:FooType"/>
 
Now the other issues about where WSDL stops and other specs start I think is
actually relatively clear cut. I think if WSDL can allow third party
specifications to achieve what they want to achieve (the Grid community
immediately springs to mind as a group that WSDL can/will be able to
support), then that's as far as it needs to go. At the moment there is a
strong push from some user communities (In fact this mailing list is
symptomatic of that push :-)) to refactor some of their own "vertical"
issues into the "horizontal" WSDL. That is not to say that such feedback is
invalid, but care should be taken by the WG that it does not become the
vehicle for the advancement of one particular use-case at the expense of
others.
 
Personally I believe that the extensibility model in WSDL is the way that
third parties should primarily embrace and extend WSDL. I would be all ears
if people talked about improving the extensibility model since it would
benefit all user communities. However some significant elements of the
feedback to the WG doesn't seem to be pitched at the meta-level, and instead
suggests changes to the nuts and bolts of WSDL which others may rely on.
Thus the scope of the WG may have to be, necessarily, brutally defined to
prevent feature creep from verticals.
 
Jim
 
Jim