- From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
- Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 01:27:57 +0200
- To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <99CA63DD941EDC4EBA897048D9B0061D1370BBF2@uspalx20a.pal.sap.corp>
Folks, In review of the draft, it is not clear to me what we are assuming with respect to the presence of an extension in WSDL without using wsdl:required attribute. Do we assume that it is optional (i.e. wsdl:required="false"), or is it undefined? In reading the section about mandatory extensions, it seems that such extensions are assumed to be optional (since they are definitely NOT marked with wsdl:required attribute and considered to be non-mandatory per that section). If this is the semantics, I propose that we include a clarification that the default value for the wsdl:required attribute is false and extensions that appears in a WSDL document are considered to be marked to be optional. If that is not the intended semantics, I would like to know what it means to put an extension in WSDL, not mark it required optional/required and what would that tertiary logic implies? If I have missed a discussion and resolution on this, a pointer to the resolution will be appreciated. Thanks, --umit
Received on Friday, 29 April 2005 23:40:23 UTC