RE: NEW ISSUE 4251 - Change syntax of some WSDL 1.1 identifiers

We discussed two syntax variations this morning.  I'm cool with either.
I just used the earlier syntax because I was referring to earlier
notes that used this syntax.

All the best, Ashok

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Orchard
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 4:21 PM
> To: Ashok Malhotra; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: RE: NEW ISSUE 4251 - Change syntax of some WSDL 1.1 identifiers
> 
> 
> I think your proposal be:
> 
> - wsdl11.portType.input(portType/operation)
> - wsdl11.portType.output(portType/operation)
> - wsdl11.portType.fault(portType/operation)
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ashok Malhotra
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 10:54 AM
> > To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> > Subject: NEW ISSUE 4251 - Change syntax of some WSDL 1.1 identifiers
> >
> >
> > This issue was first discussed in my note
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Nov/0128.html
> > It recommended that the syntax of the identifiers
> > - wsdl11.portTypeMessageReference(portType/operation/message)
> > - wsdl11.portTypeOperationFault(portType/operation/fault)
> > be changed to
> > - wsdl11.portTypeMessageInput(portType/operation)
> > - wsdl11.portTypeMessageOutput(portType/operation)
> > - wsdl11.portTypeMessageFault(portType/operation)
> >
> > Similar changes were recommended for the corresponding
> > identifiers for the binding element.
> >
> > David Orchard argued that the syntax was designed to align
> > with the WSDL 2.0 syntax.  So, I asked the WSDL 2.0 WG for
> > their opinion.  They explained their rationale in
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Dec/0092.html
> >
> > Jonathan Marsh expressed their opinion succinctly as "The WG
> > expressed no preference on whether your suggested redesign
> > was a benefit for WSDL 1.1 component designators, where there
> > isn't support for MEP extensibility.  We note that if
> > consistency with WSDL 2.0 component designators is paramount,
> > keeping this redundant information in the format would be
> > desirable.  Yet if simplicity is paramount, removing the
> > redundant information as you suggest would be natural."
> >
> > Thus, we need to answer Jonathan's question above and take
> > the appropriate decision.
> >
> >
> > All the best, Ashok
> >
> >
> >
>

Received on Thursday, 18 January 2007 00:46:07 UTC