> Goland: If I may paraphrase "Future versions of X may support Y and Z.
> This specification says nothing about Y or Z." Why is this statement
> necessary?
mm1: Yaron, both Ron and I agree it is important for WS-BPEL TC to be
future-looking. By making a forward-looking statement, we evidence that
intent without levying any burden.
In addition, I suggest we address Ugo's question about WS-I BP v1.1.
Whether this is a part of Issue 86, revisit of Issue 72 or a new issue,
I don't have a preference. Thanks.
>> Proposal to vote, Issue 86 SOAP v1.2
>> Change in Section 3.0:
>>
>> Change From:
>> "With respect to [WS-I Basic Profile] (Basic Profile 1.0) all BPEL
>> implementations SHOULD be configurable such that they can participate in
>> Basic Profile 1.0 compliant interactions. A BPEL implementation MAY
>> allow the Basic Profile 1.0 configuration to be disabled, even for
>> scenarios encompassed by the Basic Profile 1.0."
>>
>> Change To (add two sentences):
>> "With respect to [WS-I Basic Profile] (Basic Profile 1.0) all BPEL
>> implementations SHOULD be configurable such that they can participate in
>> Basic Profile 1.0 compliant interactions. A BPEL implementation MAY
>> allow the Basic Profile 1.0 configuration to be disabled, even for
>> scenarios encompassed by the Basic Profile 1.0. Future versions of the
>> WS-I Basic Profile may support the W3C SOAP v1.2 Recommendation and a
>> subsequent WSDL v2.0 when complete in W3C. It is not the objective of
>> this specification to define or require that particular protocol
>> bindings be supported by compliant implementations."
>>
>> Thanks.
>> Submitted by: Ron Ten-Hove and Monica J. Martin
>
