- From: Jim Webber <jim.webber@arjuna.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:13:44 +0100
- To: "'Sanjiva Weerawarana'" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sanjiva: > Hmm. As was discussed in Rennes, WSDL 1.1's <service> element > had no meaningful semantics and we wanted to provide some valuable > semantics. That might be the case, but replacing it with something like targetResource isn't too sensible because it isn't idiot proof. > Why bother with all this pain with removing message etc.? I > have a better idea - let's go back to WSDL 1.1 and declare victory! There is a lot to be said for that :-) But seriously, I think some of the simplifications are worthwhile (like removing message) and others are unstoppable but not harmful except to duffers (like attributes). Of course if <service> in 1.1 had no meaningful semantics, we could apply arbitrary semantics to it in 1.2 - eg if two interfaces appear in the same <service> declaration, they are assumed to be controlled by the same administrative domain. Jim
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2003 12:13:53 UTC