W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2006

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

From: Rogers, Tony <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:23:23 +1100
Message-ID: <BEE2BD647C052D4FA59B42F5E2D946B312B9F4@AUSYMS12.ca.com>
To: <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>, <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
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 <blocked::mailto:tony.rogers@ca.com> 
co-chair, W3C WS-Description Working Group
co-chair, OASIS UDDI Spec Technical Committee
Received on Monday, 27 March 2006 01:23:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:39 GMT