W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Use of mime:mimeXml in WSDL 1.1 MIME bindings.

From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 10:13:58 -0700
Message-ID: <3E930356.2060008@oracle.com>
To: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
CC: Dirk_Wollscheid/Santa_Teresa/IBM <Dirk_Wollscheid/Santa_Teresa/IBM@ca.ibm.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org

I don't quite see it that way. If one specifies xsd:string, that is 
defining a schema. WSDL 1.1 does not make it clear whether message parts 
that are bound as an attachement are defined using 'type' or 'element'. 
So, it seems to me that either is allowed. And section 5 does not 
restrict 'type' to text/xml and 'element' to mime:mimeXml.

I am not convinced that it is not syntactic sugar.

I will bring it to the attention of the WS-I Basic Profile WG the fact 
that DB2 does use mimeXml.

Does DB2 make the distinction between text/xml and mime:mimeXml OR does 
DB2 treat mime:mimeXml as syntactic sugar? Does it make the distinction 
based on how the message part is defined ('type' v. 'element')?

Thanks.

-Anish
--

Arthur Ryman wrote:
> 
> Anish,
> 
> I think you're right about the difference. But it's not syntactic sugar 
> afterall.
> 
> <mime:content type="text/xml"/> is for the case where the schema is not 
> known. I suppose the message part would be defined as xsd:string instead 
> of an element.
> 
> On the other hand <mime:mimeXML> is for the case where the message part 
> is an element. It think both cases are need. As I mentioned, we do use 
> mimeXml for DB2 (in addition to SOAP bindings of course).
> 
> Arthur Ryman,
> WebSphere Studio Development Lead,
> Web Services, XML and Data Tools
> 
> phone: 905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
> assistant: 905-413-2323, TL 969-2323
> fax: 905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
> intranet: http://w3.torolab.ibm.com/~ryman/
> 
> 
> 	*Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>*
> Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> 
> 04/01/2003 10:04 PM
> Please respond to Anish.Karmarkar
> 
> 	       
>         To:        Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
>         cc:        Dirk Wollscheid/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS, 
> www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
>         Subject:        Re: Use of mime:mimeXml in WSDL 1.1 MIME bindings.
> 
>        
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Arthur,
> 
> The part that confuses me is that section 5.3 in [1] says:
> 
> "If the return format is XML, but the schema is not known ahead of time,
> the generic mime element can be used indicating text/xml:
> 
> <mime:content type="text/xml"/>
> "
> 
> and 5.6 says:
> 
> "To specify XML payloads that are not SOAP compliant (do not have a SOAP
> Envelope), but do have a particular schema, the mime:mimeXml element may
> be used to specify that concrete schema."
> 
> So 5.3 says that when mime:content (for text/xml) is used there is no
> associated schema. This isn't true, since there will be a schema
> associated with the part that is being bound to the particular
> mime:part.
> 
> Whereas, 5.6 says that the payload cannot be a SOAP envelope. What
> happens if the schema says that it is a SOAP envelope (which is indeed
> posible since SOAP envelope is XML with an associated schema :) ).
> Ofcourse such an Envelope will not be the root part and will be "payload".
> 
> I am not sure if the authors of WSDL 1.1 saw the two
> (<mime:content type="text/xml"> and <mime:mimeXml>) as different. But,
> it seems to me that mime:mimeXml is syntactic sugar for
> <mime:content type="text/xml">.
> 
> Given that mime:content is used for types other than text/xml, WS-I will
> have to fix/address the "bug" in section 5.3. It was not clear to me
> that there was any value in fixing the "bug" in 5.6 (the assumption that
> I had made was that mime:mimeXml was not being used by anyone - which
> as your email indicates is not true).
> 
> -Anish
> --
> 
> 
> Arthur Ryman wrote:
>  >
>  > Anish,
>  >
>  > DB2 Web Services uses it. See
>  > http://www7b.software.ibm.com/dmdd/zones/webservices/worf/
>  >
>  > Why do you think this is confusing since it is simply syntactic sugar?
>  >
>  > Arthur Ryman
>  >
>  >
>  >                  *Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>*
>  > Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
>  >
>  > 04/01/2003 12:59 PM
>  > Please respond to Anish.Karmarkar
>  >
>  >                        
>  >         To:        www-ws-desc@w3.org
>  >         cc:        
>  >         Subject:        Use of mime:mimeXml in WSDL 1.1 MIME bindings.
>  >
>  >        
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > All,
>  >
>  > The Basic Profile Working Group in Web Services Interoperability
>  > Organization (WS-I) [1] is looking at the MIME bindings from WSDL 1.1.
>  >
>  > There is a proposal within the WG to get rid of mime:mimeXml as it is
>  > thought to be potentially confusing, would simplify things and is
>  > syntactic sugar for -
>  >
>  > <mime:content type="text/xml" ... />
>  >
>  > This email is to solicit input from implementers, as to, whether there
>  > are any implementations that implement mime:mimeXml and/or find it
>  > useful.
>  >
>  > Thanks and regards.
>  >
>  > -Anish
>  > Oracle Corp.
>  > --
>  >
>  > [1] http://www.ws-i.org
>  > [2] http://www.w3.org/tr/wsdl#_Toc492291084
>  >
>  >
>  >
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2003 13:17:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:23 GMT