Re: is the uniqueness constraint on top level components sufficient?

"Martin Gudgin" <> writes:
> The spec currently says ( for interfaces, for example )
> For each interface component in the {interfaces} property of a
> definitions container the combination of {name} and {target namespace}
> properties must be unique. 
> There is only ever one definitions container. Therefore there is only
> one {interfaces} property. Therefore interfaces MUST all have unique
> Qnames. If they don't it's an error and the WSDL parser should
> catch-fire-and-die. 

Agreed; WSDL parsers are not the ones who have the problem I'm
trying to solve.

> I don't understand what it is you want to change.

The wording in the spec does not guarantee that there MUST only
be exactly one Interface component with a given QName. 

Maybe I'm just being retarted and not seeing that there's no
problem, but what I had in mind was to add a statement like the
following somewhere:

    "The QName identifying any top level Interface, Binding or 
     Service component MUST be unique from amongst all similar
     components. That is, two different top level components of
     the same kind MUST NOT share the same QName. However, two
     components of different kinds MAY have the same QName."


Received on Friday, 19 September 2003 18:02:12 UTC