W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > March 2004

Re: features and requiredness

From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 13:48:03 -0500
Message-ID: <05c101c40abe$0c7191d0$7b00a8c0@AURORA>
To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

> [Many apologies for spamming this list, but I need to get these
> items clarified one-by-one .. so spam it is going to be until we
> get this baby done.]

...or until you make enough off your clever Sri-Lankan pyramid schemes to
retire... :)

> I'm trying to deal with the following:
> EDTODO    2004-03-05: Editors to clarify the spec to say that
>                       wsdl:required attribute means that a feature
>                       must be understood and it must be engaged.
> EDTODO    2004-03-05: Editors to clarify that the strongest value of
>                       the @wsdl:required attribute wins.
> So I'm definitely confused: Our spec does not allow wsdl:required
> to be present on elements in the WSDL namespace.
> I think these EDTODOs came from the discussion between Jonathan
> and Glen about F&P, right? Guys, did you mean feature/@required
> when the above says wsdl:required?

Absolutely, yes.  This was apparently a misunderstanding.

> So we're trying to help idiots who want to say:
>     <some-wsdl-element>
>         <feature uri="schema:foo-bar-baz" required="true"/>
>         <feature uri="schema:foo-bar-baz" required="false"/>
>     </some-wsdl-element>
> by providing a semantic for it??? Why not say this is illegal ..
> all feature components in a given parent must have unique @uri values.

We could do that for a given component, but you still need to talk about it
when you have:

<interface name="iSvc">
 <feature uri="foo:feature1" required="true"/>
<binding interface="iSvc">
 <feature uri="foo:feature1" required="false"/>

> Finally, does the same thing need to be done for property/@required?

I still don't think that property/@required really makes any sense, but if
we have it it should have the same semantics (an in-scope
property/@required="true" trumps a "false").

Received on Monday, 15 March 2004 13:48:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:39 UTC