- From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 09:12:50 -0700
- To: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Liu Kevin" <kevin.liu@sap.com>
- Cc: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Don't worry, when I'm done with the abstact model, and the mapping from that model to the XML syntax, it will be nice and clean Gudge -----Original Message----- From: Tom Jordahl [mailto:tomj@macromedia.com] Sent: 02 July 2002 15:42 To: 'Jean-Jacques Moreau'; 'Liu Kevin' Cc: 'Sanjiva Weerawarana'; 'WS-Desc WG (Public)' Subject: RE: WSDL 1.2: Updated draft (June 30) - typos and minor errors I noticed this problem with the target namespace wording was well. +1 to rewording this. -- Tom Jordahl Macromedia Jean-Jacques wrote: > >>>Section 2 (text above the box for "issue-require-targetnamspace") > >>>the > new text for targetNamespace is not very clean - maybe just for me. I > believe the resolution is to make defintion@targetNamespace required. > All children elements defined by this wsdl document belongs to this > namespace. I know we are talking about abstract model here, but if map > to the wsdl elements, the wording reads like wsdl1.2 requires that > every individual child elements, except type element, have a > targetNamespace attribute. I don't believe that's what we meant. > > Again, this may be just my own interpretation, other people may > interpret differently. To avoid future confusion, can we make the > wording more straight-forward? I think you're right, this needs rewording. NOT done.
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2002 12:13:55 UTC