- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:47:00 +0200
- To: sggraham@us.ibm.com
- CC: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sounds good to me. Jean-Jacques. sggraham@us.ibm.com wrote: > One way around this is to make the implements element a child > of the service. > > "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr> > > That type is indicated by inserting the following required > declaration: > > > > <implements serviceType="qname"/> > > ... however I don't think we can require the wsdl:implement > element to be always present. For example, the WSDL file may > only > contain an abstract service declaration, which is refined and > implemented in a second WSDL file. I think wsld:implement > should > be optional unless there is a concrete service definition (i.e. > > binding), in which case it should be mandatory. >
Received on Thursday, 13 June 2002 10:47:47 UTC