- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:11:19 +0600
- To: "Allen Brookes" <abrookes@roguewave.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
"Allen Brookes" <abrookes@roguewave.com> writes: > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > 16. Issue LC43: Rename <definitions> to <description> [.1] > > [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC43 > <http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC43> > > > > [Marsh] Make LC42 editorial, hand it to editors for resolution. > [dbooth] me +1 to "description" > [Allen] Roberto: concern that name change will lead to reopening other name > change issues. > [Allen] Resolved to rename "definitions" to "description". > [Allen] ACTION: Editors will implement change of "<definitions>" to > "<description>" everywhere. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ Shouldn't that be "descriptions"? A <description> element contains many descriptions after all. I'm personally not for changed it .. but I missed the call last nite (not sure what I drank to lose my mind so much). Just to give some historical perspective- when WSDL was first being created this word was debated too .. in fact I wanted WSDL to stand for "WS Definition L" because of <definitions> .. but the decision was to call it "WS Description L" and to keep <definitions> because what's inside <definitions> is a set of message, portType etc. *definitions* which in turn *describe* various aspects of the Web service. Thus, WSDL describes a Web service by defining a bunch of stuff. That's how <definitions> and "WS Description L" were rationalized. Sigh. Gotta stay off the bottle. Sanjiva.
Received on Friday, 24 September 2004 09:10:05 UTC