4563 2007-05-17 00:48:01 +0000 {rpc signature} ambiguity 2007-05-17 00:48:01 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WSDL Adjuncts 2.0 All All NEW http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2007May/0026.html P2 normal --- 1 jonathan plh www-ws-desc oldest_to_newest 15101 0 jonathan 2007-05-17 00:48:01 +0000 Part 2 section "4.1.1 wrpc:signature Extension" seems to be saying: 1) that wrpc:signature MAY be used if {style} is RPC, and 2) that if wrpc:signature is used it will contribute the {rpc signature} property, and 3) that the {rpc signature} property MUST be present if {style} is RPC. So it infers that {rpc signature} could still be present even if wrpc:signature is omitted from the WSDL (that is, if wrpc:signature is not used when {style} is RPC). Is this a valid state? Test cases RPC-1G and RPC-2G omit the wrpc:signature extension attribute from the WSDL but produce a component model where the {style} is RPC. So assuming {rpc signature) MUST be present because the {style} is RPC, what should it's value be for these 2 test cases? Woden exposes the {rpc signature} on its API if the {style} is RPC, but for these 2 test cases the API returns null for the {rpc signature} property. This disagrees with the Interchange baseline, which assumes that the {rpc signature} property is not present (even though the {style} is RPC). If in fact {rpc signature} can ONLY be contributed by wrpc:signature (which seems sensible to me), then maybe the assertion in step 3) should say: "{rpc signature} OPTIONAL, but MUST be present when the style is RPC and wrpc:signature is present†." or, if we can be this strict about it: "{rpc signature} OPTIONAL, but MUST be present if and only if the style is RPC and wrpc:signature is present†."