Surely both statements are true and both “but” clauses don’t need
to be said. Extensions are always possible, and we can’t prohibit anything in
the future!
So how about:
“This
specification only defines a binding using WSDL 1.1.”
From: David Booz [mailto:]
Sent: 04 February 2009 17:57
To:
Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] ISSUE 55: WSDL 2.0
I may have missed some discussion. I was surprised to see this:
"This specification only
defines a binding using WSDL 1.1, but does not prohibit a future specification
defining a binding for WSDL 2.0."
I was expecting to see this:
This specification only
defines a binding using WSDL 1.1, but does not prohibit a vendor from extending
the binding to support WSDL 2.0.
The first statement doesn't really say anything since future specs are free to
change whatever they want anyway. I would have thought that the important point
to address was around concerns that the binding was limited to 1.1 in the
presence of a WSDL 2.0 spec, and therefore we need to leave the door open for
vendors to go there if they want to.
Dave Booz
STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture
Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC
"Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093
e-mail:
Bryan Aupperle---02/02/2009 02:23:59 PM---Draft b based
on last week's discussion Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
From:
Bryan Aupperle/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
To:
Date:
02/02/2009 02:23 PM
Subject:
[sca-bindings] ISSUE 55: WSDL 2.0
Draft b based on last week's discussion
Bryan Aupperle, Ph.D.
STSM, WebSphere Enterprise Platform Software Solution Architect
Research Triangle Park, NC
+1 919-254-7508 (T/L 444-7508)
Internet Address: [attachment "sca-binding-ws-1.1-spec-cd01-rev4+Issue55b.doc"
deleted by David Booz/Poughkeepsie/IBM] ---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
