Re: Issue 212: Generic operations (proposal)

The entire paragraph would be:

"""For each Binding Operation component in the {operations}  property 
of a Binding component, the {operation reference}  property MUST be 
unique. That is, one cannot define multiple bindings for the same 
operation within a given Binding component. This includes Binding 
Operation components without an {operation reference} property; i.e., 
there may be only one such Binding Operation component in a Binding 
component."""

Does that make sense?

Cheers,


On Jun 10, 2004, at 12:24 AM, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:

> +1.
>
> I'm not sure I understand the second sentence though (the part before 
> "i.e.").
>
> JJ.
>
> Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
>>
>> As explained in issue 212 [1], I think it would be valuable to allow  
>> the description of a "default" binding operation component for a  
>> particular endpoint, if the binding information is the same for many 
>> or  all of the operations that it implements.
>>
>> To enable this, I propose the following specific changes:
>>
>> - Add the following to 2.1.11, after the bullet list:
>> """A Binding Operation component without an {operation reference}  
>> property is to be considered the default Binding Operation Component  
>> for that Binding component; that is, it will be used by any 
>> operations  in the interface that does not have a corresponding 
>> operation reference  in the binding."""
>>
>> - Add to the following sentence:
>> """This includes Binding Operation components without an {operation  
>> reference} property; i.e., there may be only one such Binding 
>> Operation  component in a Binding component."""
>>
>>  - In 2.1.12, change:
>>   A REQUIRED ref attribute information item as described below...
>> to:
>>   An OPTIONAL ref attribute information item as described below...
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> 1.  http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd- 
>> issues.html#x212
>>
>> -- 
>> Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
>>
>>

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Thursday, 10 June 2004 11:24:44 UTC