- From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 15:56:17 -0700
- To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
I like the proposal. I have a friendly amendement below, which is somewhat stronger. (with a lowercase "must") --umit > -----Original Message----- > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh > Sent: Friday, Jul 08, 2005 1:23 PM > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org > 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. How about: These attributes must not be considered as part of the application data that is conveyed by the message. Therefore, they are not included in the description of a signature by using wrpc:signature. > > > >
Received on Friday, 8 July 2005 22:56:03 UTC