W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-resource-access@w3.org > May 2010

RE: comments about proposal for Issue 9610

From: Li, Li (Li) <lli5@avaya.com>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 12:31:45 -0400
Message-ID: <7DC6C0F0E8D7C74FB4E1E73CC371280A017AD99A@300813ANEX2.global.avaya.com>
To: "Gilbert Pilz" <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>
Cc: <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>


Yes, it would. I ran a few tools and they are fine with the WSDL. So my
concern with empty SOAP message is what the Infoset for the operation
would be, as the spec says 


This specification can be used in terms of XML Information Set (Infoset)
[XML Infoset]
oset> , even though the specification uses XML 1.0 terminology. Valid
Infoset for this specification is the one serializable in XML 1.0, hence
the use of XML 1.0. 




From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:gilbert.pilz@oracle.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 11:02 AM
To: Li, Li (Li)
Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: Re: comments about proposal for Issue 9610



The message has no parts because I want to generate a SOAP message with
an empty Body. If I defined a part, wouldn't it be used as the SOAP

- gp

On 5/12/2010 7:50 AM, Li, Li (Li) wrote: 

Some comments about proposal [1] for issue 9610.
1) there is a small typo in Appendix B.2 WSDL:
    mlns:tns="http:// www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/edcopies/ws-evt
2) Appendix B.2 WSDL has a message with zero part. Although this is
legal, it can cause problems for toolkits. Also there is no Infoset for
this message. How about define a part/element and say the psudo event is
never filtered.
[1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=877&action=edit
Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 16:32:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:56 UTC