Following all of Mike's points....
Mike Edwards wrote:
Folks,
I agree with the general direction
advocated
here:
1) <binding.ws/> implies a
WSDL-related
binding
2) <binding.ws/> SHOULD imply
a SOAP binding
3) <binding.ws/> WITHOUT an
explicitly
supplied WSDL MUST support SOAP & HTTP
I believe we require supporting binding.ws with nothing additional
supported, as in:
"<binding.ws/>"
Coupled with Mike's statement above, this implies that a conforming
implementation MUST support SOAP, even if SOAP is not used in a
particular configuration.
Is that the question or is the question more specifically that it is
always true that a binding.ws implementation "alwaysProvides" "soap"?
If you can't tell, I'm slightly lost as to the actual issue.
-Eric.
