Re: Issue: Text in the WSDL spec inconsistency about optional parts

Jean-Jacques,

I am referring to the following:

http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl

Which is same as your [1].

There is a section numbered '5.11 MIME Binding example' in the document (in
you [1] or the one I listed above). However it occurs right after section
5.0 and should actually be section 5.1. Another editorial thing that needs
to be fixed.

Regards, Prasad

Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:

> Prasad,
>
> I am confused. There is no section 5.11, AFAIK. Is it section
> 5.1, WSDL 1.1 [1]? (and not the editor copy at [2]?)
>
> Raised as new issue #60 anyway.
>
> Jean-Jacques.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/NOTE-wsdl-20010315
> [2]
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/part2/wsdl12-part2.html
>
> Prasad Yendluri wrote:
>
> > Action Item for me from last meeting:
> >
> > >2002.05.30: Prasad to raise an issue of spec inconsistency
> > about  optional parts.
> >
> > The examples in Section 5.11 clearly see the need for parts
> > being optional. However since decided that parts in messages
> > will not be permitted to be optional, we need to fix the
> > examples. Example 7 carries in its description:
> >
> > The response contains multiple parts encoded in the MIME format
> > multipart/related: a SOAP Envelope containing the current stock
> > price as a float, zero or more marketing literature documents
> > in HTML format, and an optional company logo in either GIF or
> > JPEG format.
> >
> > However, neither the abstract level definitions nor the
> > concrete bindings shown make the parts (attachments) optional.
> > Specifically the "optional" company-logo nor the marking
> > literature (zero or more => optional w/ cardinality) are really
> > not optional. We need to fix the examples accordingly.
> >
> > Regards, Prasad

Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2002 10:59:55 UTC