Re: [wsrp-wsia] [change request #150] Typing of extensions

[Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>]

It was pointed out that a rewording of the second phrase of this could 
make the intent clearer, I suggest:

We RECOMMEND extensions either be of type xsd:string or be of a type 
defined in the Producer's WSDL as this enables Consumers to prepare an 
appropriate serializer/deserializer.

Rich Thompson




Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
02/18/2003 03:56 PM
 
        To:     wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
        cc: 
        Subject:        [wsrp-wsia] [change request #150] Typing of 
extensions


Document: Spec
Section: 5.1.1
Page/Line: 16 / 20-22
Requested by:
Old text: We would encourage these to either be of type xsd:string or be 
explicitly typed in a WSDL file that carries the relevant type definitions 

so that Consumers MAY prepare the appropriate serializer/deserializer.

Proposed text: We RECOMMEND extensions either be of type xsd:string or be 
explicitly typed in a WSDL file that carries the relevant type definitions 

so that Consumers can prepare the appropriate serializer/deserializer.

OR

Proposed text: We would encourage extensions either be of type xsd:string 
or be explicitly typed in a WSDL file that carries the relevant type 
definitions so that Consumers can prepare the appropriate 
serializer/deserializer.

Reasoning: The first changes this conformance statement into something 
that can stand alone and places the conformance phrase where I think we 
have been meaning it to be (i.e. it is a recommendation that types be 
predefined). The other very reasonable option is to not have it be a 
conformance statement at all (2nd proposal). I prefer the first.

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>