- From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 08:52:34 -0400
- To: "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Cc: public-ws-pnf-tf@w3.org, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
(sorry for the late reply) My little nit with this is that I don't think the <feature> elements are needed in the bindings (at least the SOAP/HTTP one) - don't the bindings themselves already indicate that those features are supplied? My take on the <feature required="true"> usage is that it's for placement in the "abstract" section of the WSDL, to indicate that some concrete implementation (either a binding or a SOAP module) must exist for that feature. What do you think? --Glen > -----Original Message----- > From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr] > Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 5:29 AM > To: Philippe Le Hegaret > Cc: public-ws-pnf-tf@w3.org; Martin Gudgin > Subject: Re: example using features and properties > > > > Ouah! features and properties in real use! (I even note the > great care, > capitalizing the 2nd "Action" only.) > > One little knit: it's a pity we can't factor out properties into the > interface. Maybe another need for Gudge multiple level > binding proposal? > > JJ. > > Philippe Le Hegaret wrote: > > > same place, same time (and we'll be more active hopefully). > > > > For an unrelated forum, I wrote a "WSDL 1.2" document that > uses SOAP 1.2 > > and HTTP bindings. It relies on the use of features and > properties. Here > > is a link if people want to have a look: > > http://www.w3.org/2003/04/14-Validator.wsdl > > > > Philippe > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 22 April 2003 08:53:28 UTC