RE: Revised extensibility proposal

The proposals do not contradict each other. What is there to choose? +1 for both then?

-- Igor Sedukhin .. (Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com)
-- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788



-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 12:08 PM
To: Jonathan Marsh
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Re: Revised extensibility proposal


+1 for Jonathan's proposal.

Jonathan Marsh wrote:

> I still don't see why a simpler proposal won't work:
>
> 1) Open the content model to elements and attributes in other 
> namespaces.
> 2) Mark required extensions with a <wsdl:extension namespace="..."/> 
> element.
> 3) An interpreter of the WSDL document, encountering an element or 
> attribute marked as a required extension but not recognizing the 
> namespace of that element, must interpret the entire WSDL document as 
> "not understood".
> 4) Certain elements can accept "architected extensions" which means 
> they don't have to be declared using the extension mechanism.  These 
> are not really extensions at all, just boundaries between embedded 
> namespaces.

Received on Wednesday, 22 May 2002 12:19:51 UTC