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

Anish,

xsd:string is not an element so it doesn't describe an XML document. It 
just describes a sequence of character, ie. text. The alternative would be 
to use xsd:base64Binary or xsd:hexBinary by analogy to the image/jpeg 
case, but that didn't seem right.

BTW, this whole discussion might be moot if you are only concerned mimeXml 
in SwA. DB2 doesn't use SwA at the moment. 

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
04/08/2003 01:13 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.

 


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
>  >
>  >
>  >
> 
> 
>