W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > April 2002

Re: Issue: Support for optionality of parts in Messages

From: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 14:01:44 -0700
Message-ID: <3CC9C037.7DC1C120@webmethods.com>
To: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
CC: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Jean-Jacques ,

No. That issue talking about general inconsistencies in binding between
soap:header and soap:body bindings..

I think the optionality of parts in a message needs to be captured at the
abstract level (and at the binding level).

Regards, Prasad


Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:

> Prasad, isn't this covered by issue 51 [1] already?
>
> Jean-Jacques.
>
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html
>
> Prasad Yendluri wrote:
>
> > After thinking a little more, it seems to me this would be a useful
> > addition.
> >
> > Usecase: A response message could optionally return one or more
> > "attachments".
> >
> > We do have an example of having attachments in the MIME binding section
> > of the specification (Section 5.11 Example 7) but, there is no way to
> > specify those as optional with variable cardinality (minoccurs,
> > maxoccurs). The example claims these are optional in the description
> > part but, neither the "message" definitions (A 4.1 WSDL schema) nor the
> > MIME bindings ( 4.4 MIME binding Schema) permit this.
> >
> > Regards, Prasad
Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 16:59:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:19 GMT