CR126: Proposed revised wording

• From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
• Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 15:17:26 +0100
• To: WSD Public <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
• Message-id: <45D076F6.8070203@crf.canon.fr>

The resolution for CR126 says:

<original>
A WSDL 2.0 document that contains a required unengaged extension is invalid.
</original>

However, unengaged-ness of an extension is a runtime property, whilst 
invalidity is a "compile-time" property. Shouldn't the resolution be 
instead:

<revised>
A extension that is declared as mandatory for a particular interaction 
MUST be engaged by the client or Web service for that interaction.
</revised>

?

JJ.

Received on Monday, 12 February 2007 14:18:19 UTC