RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 72 - Revised proposal to discuss

> > - I don't understand why the word "erroneous" has been
> > dropped. Cases like the ones I mentioned in the past where 
> > the syntax used in the WSDL 1.1 spec is inconsistent with the 
> > syntax defined in the corresponding schema cannot be 
> > classified as underspecified (in a way they are "overspecified").
> 
> Last time this got batted around was between you and Satish, 
> ending with http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200310/msg00266.html , where
> Satish "recommended against erroneous". I took your silence then as assent.

Well, I thought it was self evident that some parts of BP 1.0 cannot be classified as being related to underspecified features. I certainly would be very curious to hear how cases like the inconsistent syntax definitions could be logically classified as underspecified (whoever can do that should run for the next political elections ;-).

Ugo