W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > May 2005

RE: WSDL 2.0 LC Comments

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 17:09:36 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A5079E98DB@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>, "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>

Thank you for your comments on the WSDL 2.0 spec.  Except for the few
indicated below that we're still working on, we have resolved each issue
as indicated below.

The latest draft incorporating those fixes is at [1].  If we don't hear
otherwise within two weeks, we will assume these resolutions are
acceptable to you.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-wsdl20-20050510/

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Schlimmer
> Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 5:04 PM
> To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Subject: WSDL 2.0 LC Comments
> 
> 
> WSD WG, below are comments from myself and my colleagues re: the WSDL
> 2.0 Last Call drafts dated 2004-08-03. We realize that these comments
> are late, but respectfully ask that you consider them carefully.
> 
> --Jeff
> 
> -----
> Section 2.3: Fault declarations should be moved down into
> interface/operation, and not be defined as first-class components of
> interface.  Fault references ought to work as message references do:
> 
> * The following argument from Section 2.3.1 applies equally well to
> messages.  Why aren't they treated consistently?  "The Interface Fault
> component provides a clear mechanism to name and describe the set of
> faults an interface may generate.  This allows operations to easily
> identify the individual faults they may generate by name.  This
> mechanism allows the ready identification of the same fault occurring
> across multiple operations and referenced in multiple bindings as well
> as reducing duplication of description for an individual fault."
> 
> * Interface Fault Components are not globally reusable.  The solution
> is
> half-baked.
> 
> * Interface Fault Components do not provide any practical re-use.  The
> 99% case just renames @element.
> 
> * Interface Fault Components are awkward because they cannot be bound
> within the context of an operation, preventing, for example, the
> assignment of a different reason string to the 'same' fault within
> different operations.  Making these 'error messages' clear for
> debugging
> scenarios will require creating Interface Fault Components that are
> otherwise identical.
> 
> * It would be much cleaner if the Interface Operation and Binding
> Operation components had parallel properties.  As it is, only one has
> {fault references}.

The WG was unable to reach consensus to make a change (other comments
asked us to go the opposite direction), and closed this issue (LC75a)
[2] without action.  The rationale is documented here [3].

[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75a
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Feb/0074.html

> -----
> Section 2.3.1 states: "Interface Fault components are local to
> Interface
> components; they cannot be referred to by QName..."  However, Section
> 2.6.3 states that "{fault reference}" is "the actual value of the ref
> attribute information item", an xs:QName.  Please make this consistent
> here and for the other components throughout the document which have
> this inconsistency.

The WG agreed with this issue (LC75b) [4] and instructed the editors to
make the appropriate changes.
 
[4] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75b

> -----
> Section 2.4.1 defines a {safety} property and a corresponding safe
> attribute.  These constructs should be removed.  Tooling can't analyze
> developer code for the purpose of automatically setting the safe
> attribute, so by default "safety" will be set to false.  We expect
> developers to have little incentive to set the safety property
> manually,
> and even when they do we are not convinced they will be able to do so
> correctly.  In addition it's not clear why safety is singled out as
> the
> only semantic declaration worthy of inclusion in the WSDL core.

The WG is still discussing this issue (LC75c) [5].
 
[5] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75c

> -----
> Section 2.4.2 states: "If elements with the same qualified name appear
> as children of both the input and output elements, then they MUST both
> be declared using the same type."  Does this imply that an explicit
> type
> must be declared for all child elements?  If so it should be stated
> explicitly.

The WG agreed to clarify the spec in response this issue (LC75d) [6] by
changing "same type" to "same named type".
 
[6] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75d

> -----
> Section 2.4.2 RPC Style defines an extension for use in the {style}
> property (see section 2.4.1.1).  As an extension this should be moved
> to
> Part 2.

In response to this issue (LC75e) [7] the WG agreed to move the style
definitions to the Adjuncts spec [8].
 
[7] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75e
[8] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-wsdl20-20050510-adjuncts.html#styles

> -----
> Section 2.4.2 RPC Style is unclear as to whether local element
> children
> may contain extension attributes.  Such attributes should be
> explicitly
> allowed; for instance as identifiers to enable the element to be
> signed
> (xml:id, wsu:Id).

The WG does not believe the current text precludes extension attributes
and closed this issue (LC75f) [9] without action.
 
[9] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75f

> -----
> Section 2.4.2 RPC Style does not appear to allow element wildcards.
> Such wildcards are necessary to enable versioning.

The WG agreed with this issue (LC75g) [10] and instructed the editors to
make the appropriate changes as detailed in [11].
 
[10] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75g
[11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Mar/0038.html

> -----
> Section 2.4.2.1 allows multiple returns.  Why?  Is the expectation
> that
> one would generate an (anonymous?) struct to hold the result?  We'd
> prefer that the signature was restricted to a single return.

The WG felt that many popular languages support multiple return values,
and the burden on languages that don't is small, and therefore closed
this issue (LC75h) [12] without action.
 
[12] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75h

> -----
> Section 2.4.3 states: "At least one of the [children] MUST be an
> input,
> output, infault, or outfault element information item."  Allowing an
> operation to only have an infault or outfault child doesn't make
> sense.
> Suggest removing infault and outfault from this list.

The WG agreed with this issue (LC75i) [13] and instructed the editors to
remove infault and outfault from the above list.
 
[13] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75i

> -----
> Section 2.4.3.3 says that the safe attribute has no default value, yet
> Table 2-5 says the {safety} property does.  While this is not in
> direct
> conflict, it could be clearer that the first case is talking about an
> attribute default, and the second is not really a default at all, but
> a
> guaranteed result of the transformation from Infoset to the Component
> Model.  There may be similar occurrences of the word "default" in
> relation to the component model elsewhere in the spec.

The WG is still discussing this issue (LC75j) [14].
 
[14] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75j

> -----
> Section 2.5.1 Message Reference Component allows message content
> models
> to consist of any single element, any named element, or none.  The
> restriction of messages to a single element child is not derived from
> SOAP 1.1 or SOAP 1.2.  Multiple element children is a type of message
> exchange currently in use.  (Microsoft supports this in ASMX.)  We
> request the facility to specify a sequence of named or unnamed
> elements
> to enable WSDL to be used to describe such message exchanges.

The WG felt that there was an industry trend away from having multiple
elements, and left this use case to extensions.  It therefore closed
this issue (LC75k) [15] without action.

[15] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75k

> -----
> Table 2-6 and Table 2-7 specify that an error results if the
> messageLabel attribute doesn't match the MEP.  However Table 2-13
> suggests it's not an error if the messageLabel attribute doesn't match
> the MEP.  It's not clear whether there is a reason for these to be
> inconsistent.  Please make it an error throughout the spec if the
> messageLabel does not match the MEP.

The WG agreed to address this issue (LC75l) [16] by making the message
label property of the binding message reference component required, and
substitute an error for empty in the text in the message label mapping
in table 2-13.

[16] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75l

> -----
> Table 2-12 says the {operation reference} is the actual value of the
> ref
> attribute.  However, the {operation reference} property is earlier
> defined (2.11.1) to be an Interface Operation Component.  Furthermore
> Section 2.4.1 states that Interface Operation Components cannot be
> referred to unambiguously by QName, which is not reflected in the
> mapping in Table 2-12.  Please make these sections consistent.

The WG agreed with this issue (LC75m) [17] and instructed the editors to
make the appropriate changes.
 
[17] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75m

> -----
> Section 2.13: Service Components implement a single interface.  This
> change from WSDL 1.1 impacts tooling negatively.  Tooling exists for
> WSDL 1.1 that serializes a single service element with ports bound to
> more than one portType.  There may also be tooling that serializes
> multiple service elements to separate ports on some basis other than
> whether they implement the same portType.  A service serializing its
> description as multiple service elements (as this change requires)
> forces it and its client implementations to add an additional layer of
> identification to equate the service element QNames.

The WG has already discussed this design extensively and declined to
reinvestigate this issue.  It therefore closed this issue (LC75n) [18]
without action.

[18] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75n

> -----
> Table 2-13 implies there may not be any endpoints in a service (it
> says
> "if any").  However Section 2.13.2 states that there are always "one
> or
> more endpoint[s]".  The "if any" thus appears to be in error and
> should
> be removed.

The WG agreed to address this issue (LC75o) [19] by removing "if any".

[19] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75o

> -----
> Section 2.14 builds the address into the WSDL core rather than
> expressing it through a binding-specific extension (as in WSDL 1.1).
> This also constrains address to a URI.  We expect bindings that
> require
> alternate forms of address (e.g., WS-Addressing Endpoint Reference).

The WG felt it had already addressed much of this issue (LC75p) [20] in
the context of LC62b [21], where we clarified that address is optional
to allow extensions with non-URI addresses (e.g. EPRs).  The WG felt it
was still beneficial to provide @address as a common place to put URI
addresses for bindings that use them.

[20] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75p
[21] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC62b

> -----
> Section 2.15: Support for versions of XML other than XML 1.0
> complicates
> the spec substantially without providing corresponding benefits in
> interoperability.  Until a version of XML Schema that provides
> facilities for handling XML 1.1 is developed and deployed there is
> little real utility in building support for XML 1.1 into WSDL.  The
> introduction of new simple types for schema in section 2.15 should be
> removed completely, and references to these types should revert to the
> corresponding XML Schema 1.0 types.  Section 2 can likewise be greatly
> simplified.

The WG agreed with this issue (LC75q) [22] and has reverted to
describing our component model in terms of XML Schema 1.0 types.  This
means new XML 1.1 features will not be directly usable within WSDL until
the XML Schema WG sorts out how to deal with them.

[22] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75q

> -----
> Section 3 states: "Note: Support for the W3C XML Schema Description
> Language [XML Schema: Structures],[XML Schema: Datatypes] is required
> of
> all processors."  We consider it sufficient to just say what it means
> when XML Schema is used, and whether it was used correctly.

The WG agreed with this issue (LC75r) [23] and has removed the concept
of a conformant WSDL processor that requires XML Schema support (see
also LC5f [24]

[23] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75r
[24] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC5f

> -----
> Section 3.1 and 3.2 describe rather intricate rules for which schema
> components are visible to the WSDL.  A table or diagram would help
> greatly in communicating this information.

The WG agreed with this issue (LC75s) [25] and has added such a table.

[25] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75s

> -----
> Section 4.1 describes wsdl:include as non-transitive, that is, you
> can't
> refer to components in an included document that have themselves been
> included.  This is inconsistent with xs:include, as well as
> restricting
> the options available for modularization of WSDL files.  Please remove
> the restriction making wsdl:include non-transitive.  (Note that
> wsdl:import should remain explicitly non-transitive, just as xs:import
> is.)

The WG agreed with this issue (LC75t) [26] that the non-transitivity was
an error, and fixed it by implementing the proposal here [27].  See also
LC92 [28].

[26] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75t
[27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jan/0059.html
[28] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC92

> -----
> Section 5: The wsdl:documentation element is not mapped into the WSDL
> Component model.  This relegates information embedded there to the
> same
> status as an XML comment.  If the wsdl:documentation element provides
> no
> semantic difference than an XML comment, we request that it be
> removed.
> But we prefer that the contents of the wsdl:documentation element be
> reflected in the Component model by adding a new property to each
> component (e.g., {documentation}) whose value is the XML Element
> Information Item of the wsdl:documentation element.  This provides
> access to the contents of the documentation element, but also to
> annotations (specifically xml:lang) specified on that element.

The WG disagreed with this issue (LC75u) [29], as documentation
differences should not be used to determine component equivalence.  The
component model is insufficient for full round-tripping anyway (e.g. XML
comments are not represented.)  The issue was closed without action.

[29] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75u

> -----
> Section 8.3 on Processor Conformance is untestable (unlike Section
> 8.1).
> Document conformance is adequate for a specification that defines
> metadata rather than runtime processing.  Remove section 8.3.

The WG agreed with this issue (LC75v) [30], and has substantially
reworked the definitions of conformance, including removing the
definition of processor conformance.

[30] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75v

> -----
> Section 8.3 states: "A conformant WSDL processor MUST fail if it
> processes an element containing a wsdl:include statement having a URI
> that is not dereferenceable to a legal WSDL document."  What if it
> already happens to have a copy of the to-be-included (or to be
> imported)
> WSDL?  The value of requiring a failure in this case is unclear, and
> we'd like this restriction to be relaxed.

The WG agreed with this issue (LC75w) [31], and removed "is not
dereferenceable or" from the above statement.

[31] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75w

> -----
> Appendix D is incomplete and therefore misleading about the amount of
> change required to migrate from WSDL 2.0 to 1.1.  Please complete this
> section.

The WG is still discussing this comment [32].

[32] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75x

> -----
> Part 2: Extensions

The resolutions below have been incorporated into the Adjuncts spec [33]
(which combines part 2 and part 3.)

[33]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.
html

> Section 2.1.1 Fault Replaces Message and 2.1.2 Message Triggers Fault
> don't allow a fault to go to an alternate location in the case where a
> wsa:FaultTo [WS-Addressing] header is specified.  Generalize these
> rules
> so that addressing mechanisms can be accommodated without defining new
> MEPs.

The WG agreed with this issue (LC76a) [34], and adding a clause to the
fault rule set that says the destination of the fault may be modified by
a binding or extension and to cite WSA as an informative example.

[34] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC76a

> -----
> Section 2.1.2: What does the term "propagate" mean in the context of
> sending a fault? Please clarify.

The WG agreed to define propagate as: "a best-effort attempt to transmit
the fault message to its designated recipient" ss a result of this issue
(LC76b) [35].

[35] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC76b

> -----
> Section 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 say that the fault message must be delivered.
> This implies that the endpoint does not have the option to generate
> but
> not send the fault.  While always useful for debugging, faults are
> sometimes logged but not sent to prevent information disclosure and
> denial of service attacks.  SOAP 1.2 allows this.

The WG agreed to incorporate the proposal at [36] to address this issue
(LC76c) [37].

[36] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0054.html
[37] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC76c

> -----
> Section 3.1: The Application Data Feature should be replaced by a
> construct similar to the SOAP header binding extension in WSDL 1.1:
> 
> * The intended semantic of the AD property URI suggests an
> architectural
> commitment beyond any required by SOAP -- application versus some
> other
> processing layer?  Such distinctions are premature at this point in
> Web
> service development and have unclear implications on interoperability.
> 
> * Wrapping the name of the XML Schema element for a header block with
> two elements and two attributes provides little additional
> information,
> sacrifices readability, and introduces opportunities for errors in
> WSDL
> generation and parsing.
> 
> * The dataHeaders header block introduces descriptive markup in SOAP
> messages.  Description languages should not introduce significant
> markup
> in the instances they describe.
> 
> * The dataHeaders header block implies that endpoints will not be able
> to successfully exchange messages unless they agree on a WSDL 2.0
> description.  XML Schema does not impose this restriction on the use
> of
> XML.  WSDL 1.1 does not impose this restriction on SOAP messages.
> WSDL
> 2.0 should not impose this restriction either.
> 
> * The rules for when to include the dataHeaders block and what to
> include in it are underspecified.
> 
> * While both the SOAP Module and the missing SOAP header construct
> declare a name for a header block (the former a URI and the latter a
> URI:local name pair), SOAP Module does not provide a structural
> description of the header block (e.g., an XML Schema element).  This
> precludes tooling and intermediaries from serializing, deserializing,
> and/or validating the header without external header-specific
> knowledge.
> Such processing has proved useful for the SOAP Body and should be
> enabled for SOAP headers too.
> 
> * The declaration of SOAP 1.1 and 1.2 headers in WSDL is currently in
> use.  (Microsoft supports this in ASMX.)  We expect this useful
> practice
> to continue going forward.

The WG agreed to replace the AD feature with wsoap:header as specified
at [38] to address this issue (LC76d) [39].

[38]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-adjuncts.
html#soap-headers-decl
[39] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC76d

> -----
> Part 3: Bindings
> 
> Section 3.8.1: Serialization as "application/x-www-form-urlencoded"
> does
> not appear to constrain XML elements to be unqualified, but neither
> does
> it explain how namespaced elements are to be serialized.

The WG agreed to address this issue (LC77a) [40]  by clarifying that
since local names must be unique, there is no need to serialize the
namespace URI.

[40] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC77a

> -----
> Microsoft does not currently plan to implement Section 3: WSDL HTTP
> binding.  If there is only weak support from other implementers
> perhaps
> it would be wisest to drop this binding or factor it out into a
> Working
> Group Note.

The HTTP deliverable is in the charter, and we expect implementation
support from several vendors represented on the WG.  The WG closed this
issue (LC77b) [41] with no action.

[41] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC77b

> -----
> EOF
Received on Saturday, 21 May 2005 00:10:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:31 GMT