RE: proposal for eliminating <message>

<redfaced>

I know how to admit when I am wrong :-( Working late in to the night it
didn't even occur to me that there isn't a problem with ordering of
arguments because each element in the complexType has a name
attribute!!! Doh! Need to go back to basics :-) Apologies.

</redfaced>

> With all due respect, I think it should be of concern for this group!
> These specs cannot be developed in a vacuum, oblivious of one another.
> I will grant that there shouldn't be excessive concern, but as with
> sister WGs within the W3C, we should be making every effort to
understand
> what others are thinking of doing, building upon WSDL as a foundation
> as does BPEL, as well as ensuring that the WSDL spec is consistent
with
> work that has gone before it...

Perhaps I didn't put it as elegantly as I could have but the reason I
mentioned BPEL was because of my concern the effect such a change will
have to a specification like this. Anyway. I don't disagree with your
comment.


I hope you won't mind if I continued with questions/suggestions on this
new proposal. By rendering my comments wrong you'll be sure that at
least some aspects are beyond doubt.

So, what if I wanted to describe a specification that only used headers
(e.g., for a SOAP actor)? Should the body attribute be optional as well?



Again, apologies for wasting your valuable time on this...

.savas.

Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2003 05:02:28 UTC