- From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 12:44:09 -0500
- To: paul.downey@bt.com
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:37:32 +0000 paul.downey@bt.com wrote: > TBH I'd prefer to avoid QNames if at all possible. I thought as there > was only one interface in a WSDL 2.0, an NCName was sufficient. Huh? Interface inheritance means that, in WSDL 2.0, you could have lots&lots (that's more than "many", I think) of interfaces in a single document. And lots&lots&lots more once you start importing and including. > *but* for orthogonality the fault name should be of the same type as > operation name in the <binding>. Looking at the <binding>, i notice > the operation name is linked to the interface using a QName. > > Does that mean that a binding can refer to an operation in another > WSDL ? In an imported or included WSDL, you mean? Yes. Note that import requires a different namespace than the definitions/@targetNamespace of the current WSDL. Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. alewis@tibco.com
Received on Thursday, 18 December 2003 12:44:10 UTC