Rich Salz on WSDL 2.0

Wait, I can't tell exactly what he's talking about in his "No Standard WSDL File" section. He states:

"In other words, it's just psuedo-code: It can't be processed by a machine, let alone any standard XML tools. This means it can't be syntax-checked, and there's no way to build up any test cases to see if the definition is actually correct and if it does what the specification authors intended."

Is it me or does he seem to think that the psuedo-XML used to describe the syntax is actually going to end up in a real world WSDL instance document. As for test cases, they need to be concrete WSDL definitions.... why would you need to parse the psuedo-code in the spec to create them???

Gudge, I'm curious what opinions you have regarding Rich's comments. Obviously, as one of the creators, there's more to the story...maybe some context you could share?

JF,

Well, I am somewhat responsible for the component model, which I think makes it easier to think about what WSDL is than if you have to always talk about syntax. But I grant that it does make the spec harder to grok for people that just want to write a WSDL file for their Web Service rather than someone who wants to build a WSDL processor.

Sorry I wasn't clear enough. I know the pseudo code is to define the WSDL, not to be used *as* WSDL. I meant, as someone implementing WSDL, not using it, the pseudo-code is not very useful.

Rich, ok... I gotcha. Thanks for clearing that up. :)