Since the QName describes both the syntax
(types) and semantics of the extension, I don't see how it could be valid
for a Producer to "overload" or reuse a QName for a proprietary
extension. Even if the intent is to simply extend the types to send additional
data, a new QName should be defined. For such cases, it is straightforward
to say that both the base and extended QNames are supported.
Rich
Subbu Allamaraju <>
11/14/2006 11:15 PM
To
OASIS WSRP TC <>
cc
Subject
[wsrp] Describing TC-defined extensions
As we are working on extensions, one question to address
is whether
there is a need for Producers to describe all the types used for these
well-known extensions beyond saying that it supports the extension by
the QName.
I'm bringing up this question since the TC is defining QNames for these
extensions, and consumers supporting the extension should have no
trouble understanding the types used for that extension. The only
exception I see is when a producer is overloading the extension QName
for its own proprietary extensions.
Subbu
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries
and affiliated
entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted
and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.
