- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:55:12 -0700
- To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@opensource.lk>, "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
- Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
I'm OK with the amendment too. The only reason for waffling a little is that it isn't testable. > -----Original Message----- > From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@opensource.lk] > Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 12:03 AM > To: Yalcinalp, Umit > Cc: Jonathan Marsh; www-ws-desc@w3.org > Subject: RE: LC75f proposal > > Looks good to me too .. with or without the friendly amendment. > > Sanjiva. > > On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 15:56 -0700, Yalcinalp, Umit wrote: > > 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 Monday, 11 July 2005 18:56:01 UTC