WSDL 2.0 Last Call Issues List
Individual view
This list received comments from 0 groups and 58 individuals.
Comments from individuals
- Addison Phillips[wM] (aphillips@webmethods.com)
[7 issues ]
- LC74a :
I18N Comments, WSDL 2.0 Part I (partial) (a) [open]
- LC74b :
I18N Comments, WSDL 2.0 Part I (partial) (b) [open]
- LC74c :
I18N Comments, WSDL 2.0 Part I (partial) (c) [open]
- LC74d :
I18N Comments, WSDL 2.0 Part I (partial) (d) [open]
- LC74e :
I18N Comments, WSDL 2.0 Part I (partial) (e) [closed]
- LC74f :
I18N Comments, WSDL 2.0 Part I (partial) (f) [open]
- LC74g :
I18N Comments, WSDL 2.0 Part I (partial) (g) [open]
- Amelia A Lewis (alewis@tibco.com)
[1 issue ]
- LC74 :
Idle question [open]
- Amelia A Lewis (alewis@tibco.com)
[1 issue ]
- LC128 :
MEP template [open]
- Anne Thomas Manes (anne@manes.net)
[1 issue ]
- LC73 :
Raising an ugly issue again [closed]
- Arthur Ryman (ryman@ca.ibm.com)
[2 issues ]
- LC103 :
{message label} property of Binding Message Reference Component Should be REQUIRED [open]
- LC125 :
Inconsistent Component Names [open]
- Arthur Ryman (ryman@ca.ibm.com)
[12 issues ]
- LC43 :
Rename <definitions> to <description> [open]
- LC80 :
Extension Components are not Described [open]
- LC81 :
The Component Model is Underconstrained wrt the WSDL 2.0 Schema [open]
- LC82 :
Operation Name Mapping Requirement Bug [open]
- LC83 :
The Component Model Does Not Enforce Component Nesting [closed]
- LC99 :
Message Reference Component is Underspecified [open]
- LC100 :
The WSDL 2.0 XSD for Root Element is Too Loose [open]
- LC104 :
Proposed Changes to the Interface Component, Features and Properties [open]
- LC105 :
Proposal for Simplifications to the Component Model [open]
- LC113 :
Feature and Property Composition for Binding Operation Omits Interface Operation [open]
- LC116 :
RE: Is schemaLocation Required When Importing Inline Schemas? [open]
- LC117 :
Problem with Service References: elementFormDefault="qualified" prevents restriction [open]
- Arthur Ryman (ryman@ca.ibm.com)
[2 issues ]
- LC103 :
{message label} property of Binding Message Reference Component Should be REQUIRED [open]
- LC125 :
Inconsistent Component Names [open]
- Arthur Ryman (ryman@ca.ibm.com)
[12 issues ]
- LC43 :
Rename <definitions> to <description> [open]
- LC80 :
Extension Components are not Described [open]
- LC81 :
The Component Model is Underconstrained wrt the WSDL 2.0 Schema [open]
- LC82 :
Operation Name Mapping Requirement Bug [open]
- LC83 :
The Component Model Does Not Enforce Component Nesting [closed]
- LC99 :
Message Reference Component is Underspecified [open]
- LC100 :
The WSDL 2.0 XSD for Root Element is Too Loose [open]
- LC104 :
Proposed Changes to the Interface Component, Features and Properties [open]
- LC105 :
Proposal for Simplifications to the Component Model [open]
- LC113 :
Feature and Property Composition for Binding Operation Omits Interface Operation [open]
- LC116 :
RE: Is schemaLocation Required When Importing Inline Schemas? [open]
- LC117 :
Problem with Service References: elementFormDefault="qualified" prevents restriction [open]
- Asir Vedamuthu (asirv@webmethods.com)
[2 issues ]
- LC2 :
Editorial: Issue 177 Implementation [closed]
- LC98 :
{soap mep} property and SOAP 1.1 Binding [open]
- Asir Vedamuthu (asirv@webmethods.com)
[29 issues ]
- LC12 :
"whttp:location" attribute is missing [closed]
- LC13 :
HTTP Operation Component ? [closed]
- LC14 :
Mapping ref attribute to {fault reference} - Type Mismatch [closed]
- LC15 :
Editorial: {http location} feature [closed]
- LC16 :
Interface = design of the application ?? [closed]
- LC17 :
URI Serialization: Order may be Lost [open]
- LC18 :
Relationship between Features and SOAP Modules ?? [open]
- LC19 :
Fault Component Re-usable Across Interfaces [open]
- LC20 :
Feature Composition Edge Cases [closed]
- LC21 :
Multipart Style and {direction}=out [closed]
- LC22 :
URI Style and SOAP Response Pattern [closed]
- LC23 :
Elaborate: Cannot be Serialized as XML 1.0 [open]
- LC24 :
"ad:mustUnderstand" - ?? [closed]
- LC25 :
What is a feature-binding? [open]
- LC26 :
wsdlLocation on the chopping block ? [open]
- LC27 :
Property Composition Edge Cases [closed]
- LC28 :
HTTP Transfer Coding and 1.0 [closed]
- LC63 :
Mixing Schema Languages [closed]
- LC64 :
URI References for Schema Components [open]
- LC65 :
Editorial: imported schema vs. namespace [open]
- LC66 :
Editorial: schema vs. schema document [open]
- LC67 :
Editorial: more .. schema vs. schema document [open]
- LC68 :
Editorial: missing antecedent [open]
- LC88 :
Editorial: Typo in Section 3.7.3 Part 2 - HTTP Fault [closed]
- LC92 :
wsdl:include semantics is different from xs:include [open]
- LC96 :
wsdl:import semantics is different from xs:import [closed]
- LC97 :
Editorial: Setting Default Values [open]
- LC108 :
Part 3, SOAP Binding - Editorial Issues [open]
- LC127 :
Editorial Comment: wsdl:include [open]
- Asir Vedamuthu (asirv@webmethods.com)
[2 issues ]
- LC2 :
Editorial: Issue 177 Implementation [closed]
- LC98 :
{soap mep} property and SOAP 1.1 Binding [open]
- Asir Vedamuthu (asirv@webmethods.com)
[29 issues ]
- LC12 :
"whttp:location" attribute is missing [closed]
- LC13 :
HTTP Operation Component ? [closed]
- LC14 :
Mapping ref attribute to {fault reference} - Type Mismatch [closed]
- LC15 :
Editorial: {http location} feature [closed]
- LC16 :
Interface = design of the application ?? [closed]
- LC17 :
URI Serialization: Order may be Lost [open]
- LC18 :
Relationship between Features and SOAP Modules ?? [open]
- LC19 :
Fault Component Re-usable Across Interfaces [open]
- LC20 :
Feature Composition Edge Cases [closed]
- LC21 :
Multipart Style and {direction}=out [closed]
- LC22 :
URI Style and SOAP Response Pattern [closed]
- LC23 :
Elaborate: Cannot be Serialized as XML 1.0 [open]
- LC24 :
"ad:mustUnderstand" - ?? [closed]
- LC25 :
What is a feature-binding? [open]
- LC26 :
wsdlLocation on the chopping block ? [open]
- LC27 :
Property Composition Edge Cases [closed]
- LC28 :
HTTP Transfer Coding and 1.0 [closed]
- LC63 :
Mixing Schema Languages [closed]
- LC64 :
URI References for Schema Components [open]
- LC65 :
Editorial: imported schema vs. namespace [open]
- LC66 :
Editorial: schema vs. schema document [open]
- LC67 :
Editorial: more .. schema vs. schema document [open]
- LC68 :
Editorial: missing antecedent [open]
- LC88 :
Editorial: Typo in Section 3.7.3 Part 2 - HTTP Fault [closed]
- LC92 :
wsdl:include semantics is different from xs:include [open]
- LC96 :
wsdl:import semantics is different from xs:import [closed]
- LC97 :
Editorial: Setting Default Values [open]
- LC108 :
Part 3, SOAP Binding - Editorial Issues [open]
- LC127 :
Editorial Comment: wsdl:include [open]
- Beyer,Nathan (NBEYER@CERNER.COM)
[1 issue ]
- LC132 :
WSDL 2.0 2005-05-10 Working Draft Discrepancies [open]
- Bijan Parsia (bparsia@isr.umd.edu)
[2 issues ]
- LC3 :
{namespace name} property [open]
- LC4 :
Table of components/properties [open]
- Biron,Paul V (Paul.V.Biron@kp.org)
[1 issue ]
- LC90 :
XML Schema comment on WSDL 2.0 [open]
- Bob Cunnings(cunnings@lectrosonics.com)
[1 issue ]
- LC55 :
binding/operation/infault|outfault? [closed]
- Craig Salter (csalter@ca.ibm.com)
[6 issues ]
- LC61a :
comments on the wsdl 2.0 working drafts (a) [open]
- LC61b :
comments on the wsdl 2.0 working drafts (b) [open]
- LC61c :
comments on the wsdl 2.0 working drafts (c) [open]
- LC61d :
comments on the wsdl 2.0 working drafts (d) [open]
- LC61e :
comments on the wsdl 2.0 working drafts (e) [open]
- LC61f :
comments on the wsdl 2.0 working drafts (f) [closed]
- David Booth (dbooth@w3.org)
[15 issues ]
- LC40 :
typo [closed]
- LC49 :
Clarify whether Parts 2 & 3 MUST be supported [closed]
- LC50 :
Message Exchange Patterns -- p2c and/or p2e [closed]
- LC84a :
Operation Name Mapping Requirement is ambiguous [closed]
- LC84b :
Operation Name Mapping Requirement has the wrong granularity [closed]
- LC84c :
Operation Name Mapping Requirement doesn't go far enough [closed]
- LC93 :
Editorial: In section 2.15.3, "and" should be "or" [closed]
- LC94 :
Clarification needed: Part 3 sec 2.8.1 and 2.8.2: soap fault codes [closed]
- LC95 :
Editorial: Typos [closed]
- LC115 :
Re: a WSDL whatsit? (conformance terminology) [closed]
- LC119 :
Misc Part1 editorial issues [closed]
- LC120 :
Contradictions regarding transitivity of wsdl:import [closed]
- LC121 :
Editorial: Ambiguous use of the terms "include" and "import" [closed]
- LC122 :
Part 2 editorial issue: "binding" versus "binding extension" [closed]
- LC123 :
Another part 1 typo [closed]
- David Booth (dbooth@w3.org)
[3 issues ]
- LC8 :
Permit URI References instead of URIs [closed]
- LC72 :
Faults that are not described in WSDL? [closed]
- LC114 :
In-Multi-Out MEP [was "WSDL 2.0 specification"] [open]
- David Booth (dbooth@w3.org)
[15 issues ]
- LC40 :
typo [closed]
- LC49 :
Clarify whether Parts 2 & 3 MUST be supported [closed]
- LC50 :
Message Exchange Patterns -- p2c and/or p2e [closed]
- LC84a :
Operation Name Mapping Requirement is ambiguous [closed]
- LC84b :
Operation Name Mapping Requirement has the wrong granularity [closed]
- LC84c :
Operation Name Mapping Requirement doesn't go far enough [closed]
- LC93 :
Editorial: In section 2.15.3, "and" should be "or" [closed]
- LC94 :
Clarification needed: Part 3 sec 2.8.1 and 2.8.2: soap fault codes [closed]
- LC95 :
Editorial: Typos [closed]
- LC115 :
Re: a WSDL whatsit? (conformance terminology) [closed]
- LC119 :
Misc Part1 editorial issues [closed]
- LC120 :
Contradictions regarding transitivity of wsdl:import [closed]
- LC121 :
Editorial: Ambiguous use of the terms "include" and "import" [closed]
- LC122 :
Part 2 editorial issue: "binding" versus "binding extension" [closed]
- LC123 :
Another part 1 typo [closed]
- David Booth (dbooth@w3.org)
[3 issues ]
- LC8 :
Permit URI References instead of URIs [closed]
- LC72 :
Faults that are not described in WSDL? [closed]
- LC114 :
In-Multi-Out MEP [was "WSDL 2.0 specification"] [open]
- David Booth (dbooth@w3.org)
[15 issues ]
- LC40 :
typo [closed]
- LC49 :
Clarify whether Parts 2 & 3 MUST be supported [closed]
- LC50 :
Message Exchange Patterns -- p2c and/or p2e [closed]
- LC84a :
Operation Name Mapping Requirement is ambiguous [closed]
- LC84b :
Operation Name Mapping Requirement has the wrong granularity [closed]
- LC84c :
Operation Name Mapping Requirement doesn't go far enough [closed]
- LC93 :
Editorial: In section 2.15.3, "and" should be "or" [closed]
- LC94 :
Clarification needed: Part 3 sec 2.8.1 and 2.8.2: soap fault codes [closed]
- LC95 :
Editorial: Typos [closed]
- LC115 :
Re: a WSDL whatsit? (conformance terminology) [closed]
- LC119 :
Misc Part1 editorial issues [closed]
- LC120 :
Contradictions regarding transitivity of wsdl:import [closed]
- LC121 :
Editorial: Ambiguous use of the terms "include" and "import" [closed]
- LC122 :
Part 2 editorial issue: "binding" versus "binding extension" [closed]
- LC123 :
Another part 1 typo [closed]
- David Booth (dbooth@w3.org)
[3 issues ]
- LC8 :
Permit URI References instead of URIs [closed]
- LC72 :
Faults that are not described in WSDL? [closed]
- LC114 :
In-Multi-Out MEP [was "WSDL 2.0 specification"] [open]
- David Booth (dbooth@w3.org)
[15 issues ]
- LC40 :
typo [closed]
- LC49 :
Clarify whether Parts 2 & 3 MUST be supported [closed]
- LC50 :
Message Exchange Patterns -- p2c and/or p2e [closed]
- LC84a :
Operation Name Mapping Requirement is ambiguous [closed]
- LC84b :
Operation Name Mapping Requirement has the wrong granularity [closed]
- LC84c :
Operation Name Mapping Requirement doesn't go far enough [closed]
- LC93 :
Editorial: In section 2.15.3, "and" should be "or" [closed]
- LC94 :
Clarification needed: Part 3 sec 2.8.1 and 2.8.2: soap fault codes [closed]
- LC95 :
Editorial: Typos [closed]
- LC115 :
Re: a WSDL whatsit? (conformance terminology) [closed]
- LC119 :
Misc Part1 editorial issues [closed]
- LC120 :
Contradictions regarding transitivity of wsdl:import [closed]
- LC121 :
Editorial: Ambiguous use of the terms "include" and "import" [closed]
- LC122 :
Part 2 editorial issue: "binding" versus "binding extension" [closed]
- LC123 :
Another part 1 typo [closed]
- David Orchard (dorchard@bea.com) and Roberto Chinnici (roberto.chinnici@sun.com)
[1 issue ]
- LC54 :
WSDL Last Call issue [open]
- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux (dom@w3.org)
[17 issues ]
- LC5a :
QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, intro and conformance issues (a) [closed]
- LC5b :
QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, intro and conformance issues (b) [open]
- LC5c :
QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, intro and conformance issues (c) [open]
- LC5d :
QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, intro and conformance issues (d) [open]
- LC5e :
QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, intro and conformance issues (e) [open]
- LC5f :
QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, intro and conformance issues (f) [closed]
- LC5g :
QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, intro and conformance issues (g) [open]
- LC5h :
QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, intro and conformance issues (h) [closed]
- LC5i :
QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, intro and conformance issues (i) [open]
- LC5j :
QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, intro and conformance issues (j) [open]
- LC5k :
QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, intro and conformance issues (k) [open]
- LC5l :
QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, intro and conformance issues (l) [open]
- LC6a :
QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, Technical comments (a) [closed]
- LC6b :
QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, Technical comments (b) [closed]
- LC6c :
QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, Technical comments (c) [closed]
- LC6d :
QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, Technical comments (d) [open]
- LC7 :
QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, Editorial comments [closed]
- Frank Ellermann (nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de)
[1 issue ]
- LC10 :
Two typos in Bindings [open]
- Glen Daniels (gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com)
[1 issue ]
- LC1 :
Property Requiredness [open]
- Hugo Haas (hugo@w3.org)
[16 issues ]
- LC11 :
Consistent naming of fooDefault/defaultFoo [closed]
- LC31 :
WSDL conformance & XML Schema conformance [open]
- LC32 :
Part 3 examples 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3 errors [open]
- LC33 :
Part 3 SOAP Binding: default HTTP method [open]
- LC34a :
Completing Part 1 Appendix C: URI References for WSDL constructs (a) [open]
- LC34b :
Completing Part 1 Appendix C: URI References for WSDL constructs (b) [open]
- LC34c :
Completing Part 1 Appendix C: URI References for WSDL constructs (c) [open]
- LC34d :
Completing Part 1 Appendix C: URI References for WSDL constructs (d) [open]
- LC35 :
Part 1 editorial comments [open]
- LC36 :
Part 3 organization: wsdls:* versus xs:* [open]
- LC37 :
Part 3 3.6.4 Mapping Between HTTP Operation's XML Representation to Component Properties and default values [open]
- LC38 :
Part 1: DTD as the schema language for WSDL [open]
- LC39 :
Part 2 editorial comment [open]
- LC44 :
Part 3 editorial comment: 3.8.1 not written in terms of component model [open]
- LC45 :
Part 3 section 3.6.2: {http location} not necessarily a template [open]
- LC53 :
Optional predefined features in Part 2 [closed]
- Hugo Haas (hugo@w3.org)
[1 issue ]
- LC85 :
HTTP binding's MEP use description [open]
- Jacek Kopecky (jacek.kopecky@deri.org)
[5 issues ]
- LC51 :
Editorial last call review comments [closed]
- LC52a :
Last call review comments (a) [open]
- LC52b :
Last call review comments (b) [open]
- LC52c :
Last call review comments (c) [open]
- LC130 :
binding fault defaulting? [open]
- Jean-Jacques Moreau (jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr)
[1 issue ]
- LC112 :
New LC issue: XML Schema required (appears twice) [open]
- Jeehong Min (jeehongm@parasoft.com)
[1 issue ]
- LC60 :
Can multiple inline schemas have same targetNamespace? [closed]
- Jeffrey Schlimmer (jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com)
[30 issues ]
- LC75a :
Faults and Messages should be similar (same level, etc.) [closed]
- LC75b :
Referencing faults by QName (editorial) [closed]
- LC75c :
Remove {safety} property [open]
- LC75d :
Require explicit type for each input/output? [closed]
- LC75e :
Move RPC style to Part 2 [closed]
- LC75f :
Allow extension attributes on RPC local element children [open]
- LC75g :
RPC should allow element wildcards [closed]
- LC75h :
Disallow multiple returns in RPC [closed]
- LC75i :
Disallow only <infault>, <outfault> [closed]
- LC75j :
{safety} has a default, @safety doesn't [open]
- LC75k :
Allow multiple children in soap:body [closed]
- LC75l :
Make messageLabel mismatch an error [closed]
- LC75m :
Inconsistent value for {operation reference} [closed]
- LC75n :
Allow multiple interfaces per service [closed]
- LC75o :
Remove "if any" from Table 2-13 [closed]
- LC75p :
Make address a binding-specific extension [closed]
- LC75q :
Disallow XML 1.1 [closed]
- LC75r :
Remove conformance requirement on XML Schema [closed]
- LC75s :
Add table showing which schema components are visible to WSDL [closed]
- LC75t :
Make wsdl:include transitive [closed]
- LC75u :
Add wsdl:documentation to the component model [closed]
- LC75v :
Remove "Processor Conformance" [open]
- LC75w :
Allow non-dereferencable includes [closed]
- LC75x :
Complete or remove App D [open]
- LC76a :
MEPs should support addressing mechanism [open]
- LC76b :
Define "propagate" [closed]
- LC76c :
WSDL 2.0 LC Comments (Part 2) (c) [open]
- LC76d :
Replace ADD with header construct [closed]
- LC77a :
Namespaced elements and urlformencoded [closed]
- LC77b :
Drop HTTP binding [closed]
- John Kaputin (KAPUTIN@uk.ibm.com)
[1 issue ]
- LC107 :
Consistency of WSDL Component property names [open]
- Jonathan Marsh (jmarsh@microsoft.com)
[1 issue ]
- LC78 :
Editorial comments on WSDL 2.0 Part 1 [open]
- Jonathan Marsh (jmarsh@microsoft.com)
[2 issues ]
- LC87 :
Component Designators - what's the unique identifier? [open]
- LC131 :
Consistent use of pseudo-notation [closed]
- Liu, Kevin (kevin.liu@sap.com)
[5 issues ]
- LC41 :
Clarification for use of xs:include [closed]
- LC42 :
error in part 2, section 3.1.4 [closed]
- LC56 :
Clarification for binding fault [open]
- LC57 :
typo in part 3 section 2.1 [open]
- LC58 :
typo in part 3, section 2.7.2 [closed]
- Liu, Kevin (kevin.liu@sap.com)
[3 issues ]
- LC62a :
issues with wsdl:endpoint@address (a) [open]
- LC62b :
issues with wsdl:endpoint@address (b) [open]
- LC101 :
message level binding? [open]
- Marc Hadley (Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM) on behalf of XMLP WG
[8 issues ]
- LC29a :
Review of WSDL 2.0 Pt 3 Last Call WD (a) [open]
- LC29b :
Review of WSDL 2.0 Pt 3 Last Call WD (b) [open]
- LC29c :
Review of WSDL 2.0 Pt 3 Last Call WD (c) [open]
- LC29d :
Review of WSDL 2.0 Pt 3 Last Call WD (d) [open]
- LC29e :
Review of WSDL 2.0 Pt 3 Last Call WD (e) [open]
- LC29f :
Review of WSDL 2.0 Pt 3 Last Call WD (f) [open]
- LC29g :
Review of WSDL 2.0 Pt 3 Last Call WD (g) [open]
- LC29h :
Review of WSDL 2.0 Pt 3 Last Call WD (h) [open]
- Michael Mahan on behalf of XMLP WG
[4 issues ]
- LC48a :
XMLP Review of WSDL 2.0 Part 2 LC WD (a) [closed]
- LC48b :
XMLP Review of WSDL 2.0 Part 2 LC WD (b) [closed]
- LC48c :
XMLP Review of WSDL 2.0 Part 2 LC WD (c) [closed]
- LC48d :
XMLP Review of WSDL 2.0 Part 2 LC WD (d) [closed]
- Paul Downey (BT)
[1 issue ]
- LC124 :
Support of evolution of messages described in Schema 1.0 [open]
- Rich Salz (rsalz@datapower.com)
[13 issues ]
- LC89a :
Clarify schema validity conformance requirement [closed]
- LC89b :
Don't introduce new abstract datatypes [closed]
- LC89c :
Drop XML 1.1 support [closed]
- LC89d :
Disabling a feature on a specific operation [closed]
- LC89e :
Properties are runtime and shouldn't be in WSDL [closed]
- LC89f :
Strengthen conformance re: syntax [closed]
- LC89g :
Bleed between XML representation, infoset, pseudo-schema, component model [closed]
- LC89h :
Use XML Schema, not pseudo-schema [closed]
- LC89i :
Need primer [closed]
- LC89j :
Use namespaces to avoid local-name conflicts [closed]
- LC89k :
Inheritance unnecessary [closed]
- LC89l :
Drop component model [closed]
- LC89m :
Clarify "directly include" [closed]
- Roberto Chinnici (roberto.chinnici@sun.com)
[2 issues ]
- LC46 :
Issue: missing "type" attribute in schema for wsdl:binding [open]
- LC47 :
Issue: describing the HTTP error text for faults [open]
- Roland Merrick (roland_merrick@uk.ibm.com) on behalf of the XForms WG.
[2 issues ]
- LC69a :
XForms comments on (WSDL) Version 2.0 Part 3: Bindings (a) [closed]
- LC69b :
XForms comments on (WSDL) Version 2.0 Part 3: Bindings (b) [closed]
- Sanjiva Weerawarana (sanjiva@watson.ibm.com)
[2 issues ]
- LC30 :
use of provider agent & requestor agent terms in the spec [open]
- LC71 :
default interface/operation/@pattern [open]
- Steve Ross-Talbot (steve@enigmatec.net) on behalf of WS Chor WG
[6 issues ]
- LC59a :
Bindings for 4 remaining MEPs [open]
- LC59b :
Support attachments [open]
- LC59c :
Differences between WSDL 1.1 and WSDL 2.0 [open]
- LC59d :
Clarify wsdlLocation [open]
- LC59e :
Clarify serialization [open]
- LC59f :
Support compositors [open]
- Tim Ewald (tewald@microsoft.com)
[1 issue ]
- LC9 :
How does the Operation Name Mapping Requirement (Part 1, section 2.2.1.1) relate to interface inheritance? [closed]
- Umit Yalcinalp
[1 issue ]
- LC106 :
Revisit LC21 resolution [open]
- Wes Moulder(wes@webmethods.com)
[1 issue ]
- LC70 :
Pluggability of Schema Languages in WSDL [open]
- WSD WG
[2 issues ]
- LC79 :
Make sure in-only mep is supported in wsdl soap12 binding [open]
- LC86 :
Pseudo-schema inconsistencies [open]
- Xan Gregg (xan.gregg@jmp.com)
[1 issue ]
- LC91 :
XML Schema comment "T2" on WSDL 2.0 [closed]
- Yalcinalp, Umit (umit.yalcinalp@sap.com)
[2 issues ]
- LC102 :
What is the SOAP MEP for In-only [closed]
- LC126 :
Clarification for wsdl:required attribute needed [open]
- Yalcinalp, Umit (umit.yalcinalp@sap.com)
[2 issues ]
- LC118 :
New Issue RPC Style (and proposed fix) [open]
- LC129 :
The description of wsdli:wsdlLocation attribute is limiting (Editorial Item) [open]
- Yalcinalp, Umit (umit.yalcinalp@sap.com)
[2 issues ]
- LC102 :
What is the SOAP MEP for In-only [closed]
- LC126 :
Clarification for wsdl:required attribute needed [open]
- Yalcinalp, Umit (umit.yalcinalp@sap.com)
[2 issues ]
- LC118 :
New Issue RPC Style (and proposed fix) [open]
- LC129 :
The description of wsdli:wsdlLocation attribute is limiting (Editorial Item) [open]
- Yves Lafon (ylafon@w3.org)
[2 issues ]
- LC110 :
WSDL 2.0 Part3, Sec. 3.4 [open]
- LC111 :
HTTP Error code for faults (part3, sec 3.7) [open]
- Zvi Bruckner (zvi.b@sapiens.com)
[1 issue ]
- LC109 :
Multiple input and output elements for an operation [open]
Maintained by Web Services Description Working Group.Last update: $Date: 2005/09/22 18:52:25 $
This page was generated as part of the
Extensible Issue
Tracking System (ExIT)
Copyright ©
2003, 2004
W3C® (MIT, ERCIM,
Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document
use and software licensing
rules apply. Your interactions with this site are in accordance with
our public and
Member
privacy statements.