- From: Charlton Barreto <charlton_b@mac.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 06:59:33 -0800
- To: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc@w3.org
+1 to having a comprehensive list of differences. -- charlton_b@mac.com +1.650.222.6507 m +1.415.692.5396 v On Thursday, December 14, 2006, at 02:05PM, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr> wrote: > >I'm wondering if we should have the partial list at all. Like all >partial lists, it gives you a flavour of the real thing, but you still >have to dig the information yourself. > >Didn't we have the same issue for WSDL 2.0 vs. 1.1, and decided in the >end to not have a comprehensive list of differences? > >I we do indeed keep the partial list, I suggest the following editorial >tweak, which does not oversell: > >s/A partial list of such capabilities follows./For example,/ > >JJ. > >Jonathan Marsh wrote: >> >> In fulfillment of my action item [1], here is some text to describe >> the limitations (at least some of them) of our SOAP 1.2 binding. >> >> >> >> Insert the following paragraph in 5.10 (before 5.10.1) >> >> >> >> The WSDL 2.0 SOAP 1.2 Binding does not natively support the full range >> of capabilities available in SOAP 1.2. Certain capabilities not >> widely used or viewed as problematic in practice are not available, in >> many cases because supporting them was considered to add considerable >> complexity to the language. A partial list of such capabilities follows. >> >> * Multiple children of the SOAP Body. >> * Multiple SOAP Fault Detail entries. >> * Non-qualified elements as children of a SOAP Fault Detail. >> >> >> >> [1] >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Nov/att-0136/20061130-ws-desc-minutes.html#action11 >> >> >> >> >> >> **Jonathan Marsh** - http://www.wso2.com - >> http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com >> >> >> >> >> > > > >
Received on Thursday, 14 December 2006 14:59:51 UTC