RE: issue 43: Does order matter for the child elements of "defini tions"?

+1

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 2:39 AM
> To: WS-Desc WG (Public)
> Subject: issue 43: Does order matter for the child elements of
> "definitions"?
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to propose that we indicate that the order of child
> elements of <definitions> is immaterial and close this issue. Given
> that we have agreed to use QName references always, this seems to
> be the obvious choice.
> 
> Sanjiva.
> 
>   <issue>
>     <issue-num>43</issue-num>
>     <title>Does order matter for the child elements of
> "definitions"?</title>
>     <locus>Spec</locus>
>     <requirement>n/a</requirement>
>     <priority>Editorial</priority>
>     <topic></topic>
>     <status>Active</status>
>     <originator><a href="mailto:kevin.liu@sap.com">Kevin
> Liu</a></originator>
>     <responsible>Unassigned</responsible>
>     <description>
>     [<a
> href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Feb/
> 0023.html">ema
> il</a>]
>     [see also issue #10]
>     <pre>Section 3.1 SOAP Examples, example 3 lists &lt;types&gt;
> as the last element under &lt;definitions&gt;. This is inconsistent
> with the schema where &lt;type&gt; is defined as the second of the
> sequenced elements of the "definitionsType"; similar issue with
> section 4.1 HTTP GET and POST Binding example 6 where &lt;binding&gt;
> is put after &lt;service&gt;
> 
> References:
>  Section 3.1 SOAP Examples, example 3
>     Section 4.1 HTTP GET and POST Binding example 6
>  A 4.1 WSDL Schema</pre>
>     </description>
>     <proposal>
>     </proposal>
>     <resolution>
>     </resolution>
>   </issue>
>

Received on Thursday, 20 June 2002 10:34:48 UTC