It was pointed out that a rewording of the second phrase of this could make the intent clearer, I suggest:

We RECOMMEND extensions either be of type xsd:string or be of a type defined in the Producer's WSDL as this enables Consumers to prepare an appropriate serializer/deserializer.

Rich Thompson

Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS 02/18/2003 03:56 PM

To: wsrp...@lists.oasis-open.org cc: Subject: [wsrp-wsia] [change request #150] Typing of extensions

Document: Spec Section: 5.1.1 Page/Line: 16 / 20-22 Requested by: Old text: We would encourage these to either be of type xsd:string or be explicitly typed in a WSDL file that carries the relevant type definitions

so that Consumers MAY prepare the appropriate serializer/deserializer.

Proposed text: We RECOMMEND extensions either be of type xsd:string or be explicitly typed in a WSDL file that carries the relevant type definitions

so that Consumers can prepare the appropriate serializer/deserializer.

OR

Proposed text: We would encourage extensions either be of type xsd:string or be explicitly typed in a WSDL file that carries the relevant type definitions so that Consumers can prepare the appropriate serializer/deserializer.

Reasoning: The first changes this conformance statement into something that can stand alone and places the conformance phrase where I think we have been meaning it to be (i.e. it is a recommendation that types be predefined). The other very reasonable option is to not have it be a conformance statement at all (2nd proposal). I prefer the first.