- From: Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 10:04:33 -0800
- To: "'Ramkumar Menon'" <ramkumar.menon@gmail.com>
- Cc: "'www-ws-desc'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <AFC8A39CC9D9448C9633B3342843C5C0@DELLICIOUS>
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
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2007 18:04:56 UTC