Re: CR Comment on WSDL Version 2, part 2: Adjuncts

Hi Tony,

Thanks. The WG has addressed many of the details of the issue (and  
reasonable people can disagree on their resolution), but not its  
overall substance.

I'm not lie-down-in-the-road against the HTTP binding -- even if I  
don't think it's a great solution for the problem space -- provided  
that there were actually interoperating implementations of it, and  
people wanted to use it for itself, not just with the SOAP binding on  
top.

However, I don't see that this is the case. So, I'm not satisfied by  
the proposed resolution. Note that I don't expect the WG to spend  
more time on this; closing the issue and marking it for discussion  
during the transition meeting would be adequate.

Kind regards,



On 2006/03/26, at 5:23 PM, Rogers, Tony wrote:

> Dear Mark
>
> thank you for your Last Call comment on WSDL V2.0 part 2: Adjuncts  
> [1]. This comment was assigned issue number CR011, and addressed at  
> the most recent Face to Face meeting of the WS-Description Working  
> Group. It was discussed at some length, both as a whole, and as  
> individual points. In response to the individual points we reached  
> the following conclusions:
> We agreed to remove section 6.4 (HTTP version) from the document  
> (this has been done)
> We did not agree with the assertion that 6.6 constrains HTTP header  
> field values - we believe that simple types (particularly string)  
> suffice, particularly as this is not a general HTTP header  
> description language
> 6.6.6 does not put all HTTP headers into a WSDL-specific namespace.  
> We are identifying components, not headers, and using the WSDL  
> restriction of one component per HTTP header to allow us to  
> identify the component with the header name - we are not  
> identifying the header
> Although the interposing of an intermediary may well make transfer- 
> encoding information (6.9) worthless, we believe that it is a  
> useful optimisation for a large percentage of cases, so we decided  
> to retain it
> We decided to take no action on the question of cookies (6.10) -  
> this topic has been discussed before, and although opinions are  
> divided on it, we are not advocating cookies, merely allowing the  
> documenting of their use. It is not really appropriate for the WSDL  
> standard to take a general position on cookies
> We decided that no action was required to addressing WebDAV,  
> because it can be handled by extensibility, by a separate binding,  
> or via a different language (such as WADL). Note that the HTTP  
> binding supports the description of arbitrary HTTP methods beyond  
> GET, POST, PUT, and DELETE
> It would be helpful if you could respond to the Working Group,  
> letting us know if you accept these resolutions of the points you  
> raised.
>
> [1]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-comments/ 
> 2006Feb/0002.html
>
>
> Tony Rogers
> CA
> Senior Architect, Development
> tel +61 3 9727 8916
> fax +61 3 9727 3491
> tony.rogers@ca.com
> co-chair, W3C WS-Description Working Group
> co-chair, OASIS UDDI Spec Technical Committee


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

Received on Monday, 27 March 2006 21:57:45 UTC