Re: CR044 update

This looks good to me, but with the following changes:

- The first sentence in the first paragraph better reads as, "A  Binding component that defines bindings for an Interface component MUST define bindings for all the operations and faults of that 
Interface component." It has the same meaning as Roberto's original sentence without the redundancy.

- The second sentence in the first paragraph better reads as, "... or defining bindings for each Interface Operation and Interface Fault component of the Interface component."

-Charlton.
 
On Thursday, September 21, 2006, at 02:13PM, Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr> wrote:

>
>+1, but why not also removing the last sentence from the 1st paragraph. 
>It looks redundant to me with the first sentence of that paragraph.
>
>Also, doesn't "by directly listing each" imply "for all", which isn't 
>true when there are defaults. Can we simply remove "each" from the 
>sentence? (two occurrences)
>
>JJ.
>
>Roberto Chinnici wrote:
>>
>> With respect to CR044 [1], I'd like to reiterate my proposal [2]  with 
>> the addition of a change to section 2.9.1 of Part 1 [3], as suggested 
>> by Jacek in [4] and further discussed in [5].
>>
>> Here is the proposed change to 2.9.1:
>>
>> Replace
>>
>> [[
>> A  Binding component that defines bindings for an Interface component 
>> MUST define bindings for all the operations of that Interface 
>> <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html#component-Interface> 
>> component. The bindings may occur via defaulting rules which allow one 
>> to specify default bindings for all operations (see, for example [WSDL 
>> 2.0 Adjuncts]) or by directly listing each Interface Operation 
>> component of the Interface component and defining bindings for them. 
>> Thus, a Binding component MUST define bindings for all the Interface 
>> Operation components of the Interface component that the Binding 
>> component purportedly defines bindings for.
>> ]]
>>
>> with
>>
>> [[
>> A  Binding component that defines bindings for an Interface component 
>> MUST define bindings for all the operations and all the faults of that 
>> Interface component. The bindings may occur via defaulting rules which 
>> allow one to specify default bindings for all operations and faults 
>> (see, for example [WSDL 2.0 Adjuncts]) or by directly listing each 
>> Interface Operation component and each Interface Fault component of 
>> the Interface component and defining bindings for them. Thus, a 
>> Binding component MUST define bindings for all the Interface Operation 
>> and Interface Fault components of the Interface component that the 
>> Binding component purportedly defines bindings for.
>>
>> Similarly, whenever a reusable Binding component (i.e. one that does 
>> not specify an Interface component) is applied to a specific Interface 
>> component in the context of an Endpoint component, the Binding 
>> component MUST define bindings for all the Interface Operation and 
>> Interface Fault components of the Interface component via a 
>> combination of properties defined on the Binding component itself and 
>> default binding rules specific to its binding type.
>> ]]
>>
>> As to the other elements of [2], I stand by my statements in [4] re 
>> the undesirability of removing all mentions of Interface components 
>> from the text in [2], which IMO wouldn't make the text either more 
>> correct or more immediately comprehensible.
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/#CR044
>> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jul/0046.html
>> [3] 
>> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html#Binding_details 
>>
>> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jul/0055.html
>> [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2006Jul/0057.html
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Roberto
>>
>>
>
>
>
>


--
charlton_b@mac.com
+1.650.222.6507 m
+1.415.692.5396 v
http://charltonb.typepad.com

Received on Thursday, 21 September 2006 15:32:38 UTC