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

RE: Proposal to Resolve encodingStyle Issues #5 and #30

From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 07:53:18 -0700
Message-ID: <2E33960095B58E40A4D3345AB9F65EC107D6669B@win-msg-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: "Web Service Description" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

+1 to this approach for our SOAP 1.2 binding. It seems to capture the
reasonable, future usage of the roving @encodingStyle without being over
complex.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr] 
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 7:17 AM
To: ryman@ca.ibm.com
Cc: ruellan@crf.canon.fr; Web Service Description
Subject: Re: Proposal to Resolve encodingStyle Issues #5 and #30


SOAP 1.2 introduces the notion of features. Features might be
implemented via SOAP protocol bindings or SOAP header
blocks. It is envisaged that a number of useful features will be made
available over time, in particular as header
blocks.

In the future, a single SOAP message might thus contain application
specific headers, plus boiler plate
headers/features, much in the same way that today an XML document can
contain elements from different namespaces.
Restricting the encodingStyle to be unique accross messages would
prevent, for example, a message to contain
features that use a different encoding.

I think a reasonnable compromise would be to disallow the encoding to
change within a given SOAP header block, but
to allow different blocks to have different encodings.

Jean-Jacques.

ryman@ca.ibm.com wrote:

> Accordingly to http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/ the encodingStyle
> attribute can occur on any child element of a header, body, or detail.
> Therefore 3.2 allows you to describe the message more faithfully.
>
> Is the freedom to allow multiple encoding styles within a single
message
> useful, or is it as useless as allowing a list of encodingStyle URIs
was?
> FYI, I have created messages that combine literal and SOAP encoding in
a
> single message, but they don't interoperate with .NET. Therefore I
wonder
> if in the quest for interop the industry will settle on using a single
> encoding style within a message.
>
> Arthur Ryman
>
>
>                     "Jean-Jacques
>                     Moreau"                To:     Arthur
Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
>                     <moreau@crf.cano       cc:     www-ws-desc@w3.org,
ruellan@crf.canon.fr
>                     n.fr>                  Subject:     Re: Proposal
to Resolve encodingStyle Issues #5 and #30
>                     Sent by:
>                     www-ws-desc-requ
>                     est@w3.org
>
>
>                     06/27/2002 05:03
>                     AM
>                     Please respond
>                     to "Jean-Jacques
>                     Moreau"
>
>
>
> I agree with restricting the value of encodingStyle to be a single
URI.
> Multiple URIs are no longer supported by SOAP 1.2. Mutliple URIs were
> supported
> by SOAP 1.1, but hardly ever used. (The perceived semantics of
multiple
> URIs
> was unclear. The intended semantics was a list of overlapping,
more-to-less
> specific encoding styles.)
>
> I think only option 3.2 is available, since SOAP 1.2 only allows the
> encodingStyle AII on SOAP header blocks, SOAP body blocks and the SOAP
> fault
> Detail element (and all their descendants).
>
> Does this make sense?
>
> Jean-Jacques.
>
> ryman@ca.ibm.com wrote:
>
> > Summary of Issues
> >
> > Issue 5: Issue 5:
> >
>
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html#
x5
> >
> > SOAP allows the encodingStyle attribute on any element of the
message.
> The
> > WSDL 1.1 SOAP binding only allows the encodingStyle attribute on the
body
> > element.
> >
> > Issue 30:
> >
>
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html#
x30
> >
> > There are two parts to this issue:
> > 30a: WSDL 1.1 allows a list of URIs as the value of the
encodingStyle
> > attribute, but SOAP 1.2 only allows a single URI.
> > 30b: Same as #5.
> >
> > Proposed Resolutions
> >
> > 1. Close issue #5 as a duplicate of #30.
> >
> > 2. Issue 30a
> >
> > This is not really a problem, since when describing a SOAP 1.2
message,
> > just use a single URI in the WSDL. Continue to use a list of URIs to
> > describe SOAP 1.1 messages. I think the point of this issue is
really
> > whether we should also restrict the encodingStyle value to be a
single
> URI
> > in WSDL 1.2. Herve Ruellan should confirm that this is the correct
> > interpretation.
> >
> > I recommend we restrict the value of encodingStyle to be a single
URI
> since
> > in practice people seem to be using a single URI. Several interop
> problems
> > have arisen in the area of encoding style so having a single URI is
a
> > useful simplification. Also, since SOAP 1.2 has adopted this
position, it
> > seems overkill to maintain support for lists of URIs in WSDL.
> >
> > 3. Issue 30b
> >
> > Pick one of the following solutions. I recommend 3.1.
> >
> > 3.1 Leave this as a limitation of WSDL. This is acceptable if we
believe
> > that most messages will use a single encoding style. This appears to
be
> the
> > approach that is being taken by WS-I.org.
> >
> > 3.2 Extend the SOAP binding to allow an encoding style to be
specified
> for
> > each message part. This makes sense if we believe that individual
message
> > parts will have a single encoding style. The syntax of the extension
is
> > deferred to the SOAP binding specification.
> >
> > Arthur Ryman
Received on Thursday, 27 June 2002 10:54:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:20 GMT