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

Re: New issue: Can the "use" attribute be eliminated?

From: Joyce Yang <joyce.yang@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 15:13:35 -0700
Message-ID: <3D77D70F.D89C028C@oracle.com>
To: "Gaertner, Dietmar" <Dietmar.Gaertner@softwareag.com>
CC: "'www-ws-desc@w3.org'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

A few comments on the proposal --

1) encodingStyle="..." does *not* mean that the use is encoded (section
3.5 in WSDL 1.1 and section 2.5 in WSDL 1.2 binding spec). One
can have encodingStyle for doc/literal. This is the case of "writer makes
right" where there is a schema/algorithm to map a particular data model
to XML data model and the encodingStyle provides a hint to the receiver
as to how the receiver should map the XML data back to the application
specific data model.

3) using empty string value to indicate literal is problematic. If XML
Base is in scope then an empty string is a relative URI wrt to XML Base.

-Joyce

"Gaertner, Dietmar" wrote:

> I took an action item in today's telcon to formulate
> a possible new issue on whether the "use" attribute
> isn't redudant and can be eliminated. This has been
> discussed (among others) in the soaptf [1]. Following
> is the "use" attribute rationale extracted and slightly
> re-formulated.
>
> Can the "use" attribute be eliminated?
> --------------------------------------
>
> The "use" attribute (soap:body, soap:header and soap:headerfault element)
> has possible values: "literal" and "encoded". The following combinations
> of style/use are possible:
>   document/literal - makes sense
>   document/encoded - makes sense (e.g. for docs using the SOAP data model)
>   rpc/literal      - does this make sense? Probably not, because RPC
>                      implies a special encoding or format.
>   rpc/encoded      - makes sense (RPC even requires encoded)
>
> Given that there can be used different encoding styles, and when
> we have use="encoded" also encodingStyle="..." has to be specified,
> isn't use="encoded" redundant? Even more,
> - doesn't encodingStyle="someURI" imply use="encoded"
> - and isn't a missing encodingStyle or encodingStyle="" equivalent
>   to use="literal"?
>
> Proposal:
>   As the "use" attribute appears to be redundant
>   eliminate it and just use the "encodingStyle" attribute
>   to express "literal" via an empty string value and "encoded"
>   via a non-empty string value.
>
> See also:
> Issue 45 [2] and 48 [3]; "use" attribute of [...] should be optional
> and Arthur's encodingStyle proposal [4].
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0039.html
> [2]
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html#x45
> [3]
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html#x48
> [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0018.html
>
> Regards, Dietmar.
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 18:14:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:21 GMT