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

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

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 11:50:49 -0700
Message-ID: <330564469BFEC046B84E591EB3D4D59C0787ACD5@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Joyce Yang" <joyce.yang@oracle.com>, "Gaertner, Dietmar" <Dietmar.Gaertner@softwareag.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

A solution to the base problem might be to restrict the encodingStyle
attribute value to an absolute URI.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joyce Yang [mailto:joyce.yang@oracle.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 3:14 PM
> To: Gaertner, Dietmar
> Cc: 'www-ws-desc@w3.org'
> Subject: Re: New issue: Can the "use" attribute be eliminated?
> 
> 
> 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 Friday, 6 September 2002 14:51:21 GMT

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