[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 86 - Proposal For Vote
> Goland: If I may paraphrase "Future versions of X may support Y and Z. > This specification says nothing about Y or Z." Why is this statement > necessary? mm1: Yaron, both Ron and I agree it is important for WS-BPEL TC to be future-looking. By making a forward-looking statement, we evidence that intent without levying any burden. In addition, I suggest we address Ugo's question about WS-I BP v1.1. Whether this is a part of Issue 86, revisit of Issue 72 or a new issue, I don't have a preference. Thanks. >> Proposal to vote, Issue 86 SOAP v1.2 >> Change in Section 3.0: >> >> Change From: >> "With respect to [WS-I Basic Profile] (Basic Profile 1.0) all BPEL >> implementations SHOULD be configurable such that they can participate in >> Basic Profile 1.0 compliant interactions. A BPEL implementation MAY >> allow the Basic Profile 1.0 configuration to be disabled, even for >> scenarios encompassed by the Basic Profile 1.0." >> >> Change To (add two sentences): >> "With respect to [WS-I Basic Profile] (Basic Profile 1.0) all BPEL >> implementations SHOULD be configurable such that they can participate in >> Basic Profile 1.0 compliant interactions. A BPEL implementation MAY >> allow the Basic Profile 1.0 configuration to be disabled, even for >> scenarios encompassed by the Basic Profile 1.0. Future versions of the >> WS-I Basic Profile may support the W3C SOAP v1.2 Recommendation and a >> subsequent WSDL v2.0 when complete in W3C. It is not the objective of >> this specification to define or require that particular protocol >> bindings be supported by compliant implementations." >> >> Thanks. >> Submitted by: Ron Ten-Hove and Monica J. Martin >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]