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

Re: WSDL2.0 Last Call comments

From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 13:29:22 -0400
To: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@enigmatec.net>
Cc: public-ws-chor@w3.org, w3c-ws-cg@w3.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-id: <20041005132922.716e682c.alewis@tibco.com>

Speaking for myself, not the working group ...

On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 09:10:20 +0100
Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@enigmatec.net> wrote:
> documents at our Face to Face meeting. Our comments and requirements 
> are as follows:

Could this be clarified?  Which are comments, and which are requirements?

> 1. We would like to see the Web Services Description Working Group 
> define bindings for the 4 remaining MEPs for which
>      no bindings have been defined or we would like them removed from 
> the specification.

The WG *specifically* decided to show examples of message exchange
patterns for which no binding was supplied in part three, in order to make
it clear that this is a space in which such definitions are permitted (and
even encouraged, perhaps).

Moreover, the WG included these examples because vocal participants
demanded that they be included, on the grounds that they would be used in
bindings developed outside the WG.

The scope of the WG SHOULD NOT be expanded to provide bindings for every
MEP, in my opinion.  It MAY be permissible, at a post-LC stage, to remove
some of the MEPs if no one steps forward with an example binding of that
particular MEP.

> 3. We recommend that a section is added describing the differences 
> between WSDL1.0 and WSDL2.0. This should
>      include differences in MEP's between the two specifications.

Would this not require actually *defining* what MEPs are, for WSDL 1.1? 
Is not such a task out of scope for this working group?

That's not a joke.  WSDL 1.1 MEPs are woefully underspecified.  WSDL 2.0
MEPs are specified, as to their scope of definition, in the introduction
to the list.

Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 5 October 2004 17:29:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:45 UTC