Re: [sca-bindings] ISSUE 55: WSDL 2.0

[Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>]

Hi David,

David Booz wrote:

OF098C13C9.82ED4D71-ON85257553.00620A15-85257553.006295C9@us.ibm.com" type="cite">

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.

The way I read the first statement is that we expect any future WSDL 2.0 binding to be a separate binding element, that is, not just an extension to the current binding.

-Eric.