RE: Minutes, 1 March 2007 WS Description WG telcon

The rationale is that there may be tricky corners here, namely that
constraining the label attributes might not be sufficient to ensure that the
{message label} property is always unique because of the
not-so-straightforward defaulting rules for that property.  The changes you
propose, if adopted, don't appear to be too disruptive to consider as an
erratum.  We simply had to draw a line at some point since the draft had
been in CR for over a year, and deferred this issue to the proposed errata
list (which should be inaugurated soon with this issue and your Binding-0055
issue).

 

We hope to take it up after we polish off our editorial and process tasks.

 

Jonathan Marsh -  <http://www.wso2.com> http://www.wso2.com -
<http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com> http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com

 

  _____  

From: Ramkumar Menon [mailto:ramkumar.menon@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 5:12 PM
To: Jonathan Marsh
Cc: www-ws-desc
Subject: Re: Minutes, 1 March 2007 WS Description WG telcon

 

Hi Gurus,

 

I was wondering what was the rationale for not addressing the proposal for
ensuring uniqueness of message Labels within Interface Message References
and Interace Fault References within the WSDL Schema. The removal of the
assertion Interface Message Reference-0042 is only a consequence of this
change - Apart from unforeseen ramifications, the schema change ensures that
the uniqueness constraint is captured well in the schema. 

 

rgds,

Ram



 

On 3/1/07, Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com> wrote: 

Enclosed!

 

Jonathan Marsh -  <http://www.wso2.com/> http://www.wso2.com -
<http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com/> http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com

 

 







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

-Ramkumar Menon
A typical Macroprocessor