- From: Roberto Chinnici <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 14:45:41 -0700
- To: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@opensource.lk>
- Cc: "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>, Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
+1 to the proposal and let's leave the wordsmithing to the editors. Roberto Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote: > 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 21:40:44 UTC