- From: David Booth <dbooth@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 02:02:15 -0400
- To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
I noticed LC76a on tomorrow's agenda. I like the general direction for the way this issue is being resolved, but I think the wording needs to be tightened up a little more, in addition to the tightening that Jonathan Marsh already suggested[2]. Part 2 section 2.2 Fault Propagation Rules[1] says "extensions or bindings may modify these rulesets", and later "Bindings, features, or extension specifications may override the semantics of a fault propagation ruleset". Perhaps these statements should be say "mandatory extensions" and "mandatory features" instead of just "extensions" and "features", since optional extensions and features are supposed to be safely ignorable, and extensions or features that cause faults to be sent to a different place do not sound safely ignorable to me. Or better yet, "mandatory extensions and optional extensions that have been engaged" (and similar for features). Basically, we don't want to imply that an optional extension would change the semantics just by its presence in the WSDL document. It would have to be engaged by the client to do so. (Hmm, now I'm wondering whether we should have defined a notion of "engaged extension", which would cover both mandatory extensions and optional extensions that have been engaged electively. Should we?) 1. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#fault-rules 2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/2005May/0091.html -- David Booth, Ph.D. HP Software / Boston Hewlett-Packard, Inc.
Received on Thursday, 9 June 2005 06:03:44 UTC