RE: issue: optional parts in <message>? from Jeffrey Schlimmer on 2002-05-09 (www-ws-desc@w3.org from May 2002)

From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 18:36:34 -0700
To: "WS-Desc WG (Public)" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2E33960095B58E40A4D3345AB9F65EC107062105@win-msg-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.mi>

Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] wrote:

>I do have a strong opinion on this; I don't view this as a 1.2
>kind of change. <portType> would have to change, every existing
>binding would have to change and every WSDL would break. How
>is that a dot release?

Just to be clear, are we thinking we aren't going to make _any_ changes
that would break existing WSDL 1.1 documents? That's a pretty stiff
constraint and can be used to "resolve" many of our open issues.

--Jeff

Received on Wednesday, 8 May 2002 21:37:09 UTC