- From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2005 01:00:45 -0400
- To: Tom Jordahl <tomj@macromedia.com>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Hi Tom, I'm in favor of calling a spade a spade, and it *is* a limitation -- you even used the word "limit" yourself! But okay, I'll soften it a bit as you suggest, as I certainly *don't* mean to be implying that WSDL 2.0 is lame. Thanks for the suggestion. On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 16:57, Tom Jordahl wrote: > David, > > I would really prefer this section not to be phrased in terms of a > "limitation". > > For instance: > "How can service providers work around this limitation?" > Change to: > "How can service providers indicate a relationship between services?" > > And > "With that caveat in mind, potential workarounds include:" > Change to: > "With that caveat in mind, potential strategies include:" > > In general, this section feels like you are pointing out how lame we > were to not include this feature in the spec. Rather it should be > presented as we had good reason to limit the wsdl:service to a single > interface and here are some good ideas on how WSDL authors can indicate > related services. > > -- > Tom Jordahl > Macromedia Server Development > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] > On > > Behalf Of David Booth > > Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 11:46 AM > > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org > > Subject: Text for primer re: Multiple Interfaces for the Same Service > > > > > > Per my work item: > > [[ > > 5. Primer [.1] > > + Section 7.4 Multiple Logical WSDL Documents Describing the > > Same Service (David) > > ]] > > I've put a draft of this section into the current editor's draft: > > http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20- > > primer.html#adv-multiple-docs-describing-same-service > > > > > > -- > > > > David Booth > > W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard > > -- David Booth W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2005 05:00:56 UTC