Re: Issue 8 (editorial): can we close?

+1

On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 22:41, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> Issue 8 [1] titled "Inconsistency in definition of attribute
> extensibility states "In section 2.1, extensibility is explicitly stated
> for all the elements, but not for attributes.  In the WSDL Schema,
> PartType is extended from "openAtts". This means anyAttributes can be
> defined in addition to the three optional attributes specified for Part
> (name, type, element). Though it mentions in section 2.3 that "other
> message-typing attributes may be defined as long as they use a namespace
> different from that of WSDL", it would be better for those who use the
> grammar as a convenient reference if this is also reflected in section
> 2.1."
> 
> It appears that the section numbers are from the WSDL 1.1 spec, which
> has pseudo-syntax for the whole WSDL 1.1 document structure.  This
> pseudo-syntax uses comments to indicate where element extensibility is
> allowed (everywhere).  There is no notation in the pseudo-syntax for
> attribute extensions (also allowed everywhere).
> 
> In our latest draft, we have pseudo-syntax for each component, rather
> than for the whole document.  Our pseudo-syntax does not call out
> extensibility points, either for elements or attributes, since they are
> ubiquitous.  Section describes both element and attribute extensibility.
> 
> I suggest that we have met the spirit of this comment, providing equal
> billing between the descriptions element and attribute extensibility,
> and should close it.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x8
>

Received on Thursday, 11 December 2003 09:25:25 UTC