[resend] Editorial >> WSDL 2.0 definitions v/s WSDL 2.0 descriptions

Previous Topic Next Topic
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

[resend] Editorial >> WSDL 2.0 definitions v/s WSDL 2.0 descriptions

Jonathan Marsh-2

Thank you for this comment.  The Working Group this issue as a CR083 [1].


As a result of this comment, the Working Group clarified this sentence, preferring the term “components” to “definitions”, which is now implemented in the editor’s draft [2].


Unless you let us know otherwise by mid-January, we will assume you agree with the resolution of this issue.


[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/issues.html#CR083

[2] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#import_namespace_attribute


From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Ramkumar Menon
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 9:26 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Editorial >> WSDL 2.0 definitions v/s WSDL 2.0 descriptions




I suggest a minor editorial change to the Part 1 [Core Language] regarding the usage of  the terms "WSDL 2.0 definitions" and "WSDL 2.0 descriptions".

Quoting snippet from Section 2.1.2  [WSDL 2.0 definitions are represented in XML by one or more WSDL 2.0 Information Sets (Infosets), that is one or more description element information items]

Quoting snippet from Section 4.2.1 [ Its actual value indicates that the containing WSDL 2.0 document MAY contain qualified references to WSDL 2.0 definitions in that namespace ]

These could be changed to WSDL 2.0 "descriptions" from "definitions" - ensures consistent terminology.





Shift to the left, shift to the right!
Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte!

-Ramkumar Menon
A typical Macroprocessor