Re: Incorporating Service References in Part1

"Umit Yalcinalp" <> writes:
> As I was re-reading the specification, it has come to my attention that 
> the current specification does not reflect the decisions we made at the 
> last f2f[1]. I should add a clarification to the last resolution in [1] 
> because we have agreed that wsdl:ServiceType and derived types from it 
> are allowed to be a reference per discussions on Roberto's analysis [2] 
> in order to fix interface attribute.

Hmm. I don't recall us deciding to accept the service reference approach
you were advocating .. but I will go back and read the minute to 
refresh my memory (still getting back to normal from the break :)).

> I would like to ask the editors of Part 1 as well as the Primer to 
> clarify who is chartered to do provide the writeups and the timelines we 
> can expect to see the changes.  I will be more than happy to provide the 
> paragraph and/or examples in question, if need be.

Also note that the publication was up-to-date to the point that
the editors could manage during the available timeframe. I think 
you know that .. 

> It may well be that the service refs are already integrated to some 
> version that is in the repository, but I am not seeing them as the URL 
> from the wg's page is to the editor's copy (dated 2004/01/06) and that 
> document does not define service references. If that is the case, can 
> the wg's page be updated to reflect the correct URL please. 

AFAIK there's nothing other than the published versions and the 
editor's drafts.


Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2004 22:01:38 UTC