- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:41:28 +0100
- To: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- CC: jones@research.att.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
If nothing else, this may be a timing issue. WSDL is evolving rapidly; the SOAP 1.2 support is still in a state of flux; it will take a little while before things are stable enough for the ARTF so start dealing with this issue. Also, it may well turn out that we need WSDL extensions for dealing with attachments. It might make sense to built them into the core. Jean-Jacques. Christopher B Ferris wrote: > > R15. The specification should not unecessarily preclude convenient > > description by languages such as WSDL. > > Hmmm... Why wouldn't the specification provide a normative WSDL binding > extension mechanism? Afterall, what authority is better suited to > define the extension than that which specifies the concrete binding > itself? > > Yes, I realize this is the XMLP WG and not the WSDL WG, but the WSDL > WG is not chartered with the specification of all WSDL extensions, just the > WSDL core syntax, processing model, extension points and framework. > > It seems to me that not defining the WSDL binding extension for this > feature would be like the XMLP defering a schema definition of SOAP > to the XML Schema WG. Clearly, we would not do that, why would we defer the > definition of the WSDL?
Received on Monday, 20 January 2003 07:42:05 UTC