- From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 16:26:32 -0400
- To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Received on Friday, 8 July 2005 20:26:39 UTC
Jonathan, By extension attributes, do you mean attributes that are namespace qualified? Arthur Ryman, Rational Desktop Tools Development phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077 assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411 fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920 mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca intranet: http://labweb.torolab.ibm.com/DRY6/ "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com> Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 07/08/2005 04:22 PM To <www-ws-desc@w3.org> cc Subject LC75f proposal I have an action to craft a proposal that addresses the need to allow infrastructure attributes on elements using the RPC style. The bullet in question (Adjuncts 4.1) reads: The complex type that defines the body of an input or an output element MUST NOT contain any attributes. I propose this become: The complex type that defines the body of an input or an output element MUST NOT contain any local attributes. Extension attributes are allowed for purposes of managing the message infrastructure (e.g. adding identifiers to facilitate digital signatures). They are not intended to be part of the application data conveyed by the message. Note that these attributes are not considered when describing a signature using wrpc:signature.
Received on Friday, 8 July 2005 20:26:39 UTC