Hi Jacque,
[Jacques
Durand] I think even if the Client is free to use the service or not, it
makes a difference to specify: usage="optional" or "possible", because
that tells the developers or deployers for this WSDL, that their WS must
support the feature on server side. (people who write the WSDL and who
implement it are not always the same: this is my point in my case #3).
Does that make sense? Other than that, it seems a single attribute is indeed
sufficient.
My assumption was that the absence of this attribute
does automatically imply usage="optional"
since the presence of this (ServiceConfig) extensibility element
itself indicate that Service will support
RM capabilities. Having said that, I'm okay with adding "optional"
as another value of this attribute.
So I'll clarify the scoping rules and will add this attribute
to all the 3 sub-elements.
Btw, we haven't finally decided at the F2F whether we wanted this
to be normative or non-normative.
What's your take on this?
-Sunil
