- From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:18:33 -0400
- To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
I think Umit was intending to talk about the WSDL 2.0 *spec* requiring it of WSDs -- not the WSD *author* requiring it of a particular service. The question is: When a service requires its users to support a particular mechanism for determining the wsdl:operation name in order to use that service, should the WSD author be required to indicate that mechanism as wsdl:required in the WSD? Some think the WSDL 2.0 spec should make this requirement in order to prevent the interop issue illustrated by Scenario X[1]; some don't. 1. Scenario X: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jun/0300.html or: http://tinyurl.com/4krve At 11:01 AM 7/14/2004 -0700, Jonathan Marsh wrote: >Umit wrote: > > All I want for Xmas is the marker in my WSDL to require services that >are > users of such mechanisms to explicitly declare what they really >rely on. > >We provide facilities to mark features and extension elements as >required for just this purpose. Specifically, services which demand >that clients use WS-Addressing or WS-MD for proper operation would >presumably have to indicate this requirement in the WSDL through a >required feature or wsdl:required="true". Isn't this adequate? -- David Booth W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Thursday, 15 July 2004 11:18:52 UTC