Re: Duplicate @binding, @address on endpoint

Hi Amelie,

I agree with you on both points - 100%. I think both seemed to be silly
questions to ask :-)
I guess I am misinterpreting the meaning and purpose of Assertions.

Apologies,
Ram

On 2/8/07, Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Ram,
>
> The first of these strikes me as hand-holding.  Sure, one can do silly
> things with WSDL, and we don't prevent it.  I don't think that we need to
> issue even a warning about this, frankly.  (If we do, could we recommend
> that processors issue warnings in Python-speak or Seussian verse?)


As to the second, the assertions about best practices in another
specification developed by a different organization with no ties to W3C
seems to me entirely out of scope for WSDL 2.0.  WSI will be able to
profile WSDL 2.0 itself, when/if it wants to.  Definitely not our job.

Amy!
(speaking for herself/her company, not the working group)
--On February 7, 2007 5:41:50 PM -0800 Ramkumar Menon
<ramkumar.menon@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Gurus,
>
> Two questions.
> 1) Is it a valid use-case [even if its possible to model] to have a WSDL
> 2.0 document that has two endpoints that possess identical values for
> "binding" and "address" attributes [but with different names] ? If not,
> we could have an "SHOULD" assertion that covers this.
>
> 2) Is it possible for the User to model WSDL 2.0 documents that are not
> WS-I BP compliant ?
>    If so, does it make sense for the Validator to emit warnings on
> incompatibility ?
>
> I am interested in knowing your thoughts on these points.
>
> rgds,
> Ram



--
Amelia A. Lewis
Senior Architect
TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com





-- 
Shift to the left, shift to the right!
Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte!

-Ramkumar Menon
A typical Macroprocessor