Re: Message attribute optional

A *huge* +1 to Tom's -1 .. i.e., its now at -2 (or more because mine
was *huge*).

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Jordahl" <tomj@macromedia.com>
To: "'Jacek Kopecky'" <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>; "'David Orchard'"
<dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: "'WS-Description WG'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 9:01 PM
Subject: RE: Message attribute optional


>
> -1 to adding back in the type=".." attribute.
>
> --
> Tom Jordahl
> Macromedia Server Development
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Jacek Kopecky
> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 10:21 AM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: WS-Description WG
> Subject: Re: Message attribute optional
>
>
> Ooops, somewhat clashing with my proposal at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Feb/0110.html
>
> I forgot about the case where WSDL wants to specify that the body will
> be empty. So now we have three scenarios:
>
> 1) empty body
> 2) body containing a single element according to a given schema element
> declaration
> 3) body containing anything at all
>
> we could add
>
> 4) body containing data according to a given schema type definition
>
> and that would subsume both 1 and 3. But in fact we've decided before to
> only keep element="..." and to drop type="...". Do we special-case
> scenarios 1 and/or 3 or do we revisit the decision on scenario 4?
>
>                    Jacek Kopecky
>
>                    Systinet Corporation
>                    http://www.systinet.com/
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 20:56, David Orchard wrote:
> > We believe the message attribute should be mandatory.  If the body is
> empty
> > then that should be explicitly stated not implied by the absence of a
> > message attribute.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Dave
> >

Received on Thursday, 19 February 2004 12:18:21 UTC