W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2003

Re: On removing messages

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 22:39:19 +0600
Message-ID: <002901c2cdfe$4e0cbc80$b100a8c0@lankabook2>
To: "Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com>, "FABLET Youenn" <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: "Roberto Chinnici" <roberto.chinnici@sun.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>

"Dale Moberg" <dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com> writes:
> Gudge expressed "reservations" in a forceful way about re-inventing the
> cardinality apparatus within input,output, and fault.

I would've been disappointed with Gudge if he hadn't done precisely
that ;-).

I am ok with dropping those, but IMHO they're very useful. Yes, it
reinvents (i.e., copies) a useful concept, but IMO that's ok because
it brings in the key value of using XSD for that level without 
bringing in all the complexity of XSD. As a result, it allows
me to say something like "I can handle 1 or more image/gif attachments."

> Also the wsdl-MEP combinatorics did not fit with the repeated input
> element. That would be easily correctable, though, if input, output (and
> fault?) were allowed to have content models with repeated "part" EIIs.

Yeah, there are several ways of addressing that problem.

> So, my scorecard now shows that the distaste for repeating the
> cardinality apparatus in attributes on input, etc as being the main
> obstacle to the Sanjiva compromise approach. Others may be tracking
> different statistics though.

Can others indicate what other problems were found please?


Received on Thursday, 6 February 2003 11:42:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:28 UTC