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

RE: comments on Appendix E

From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 21:33:46 -0700
Message-ID: <DDE1793D7266AD488BB4F5E8D38EACB802F2683C@WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>, "WS-Description WG" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Jacek Kopecky
> 
> 
> Hi all, as per my action item I've reviewed appendix E [1] (mainly
from
> the POV of other type systems) and here's what I found.
> 
> In the current spec, we always use the attributes named 'body' or
> 'headers' (in no namespace) for referencing element declarations,
> whether XML Schema, DTD or Relax NG.
> 
> It means that our model of a message is one that has a single optional
> body XML element information item and zero or more header XML element
> information items. This isn't specified anywhere and it isn't clear if
> there may be more kinds of things in a message.

You're reading between the lines correctly! This was the clear
implication of the proposal [1] approved at the 30 July F2F [2].

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jul/0161.html 
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Aug/0010.html

> So my first suggestion is to specify an explicit language what the
model
> of message is, perhaps as a paragraph in the section on The Message
> Reference Component. We also need to decide explicitly on the
> extensibility of the message model, i.e. whether there are other
things
> in the model of a message.

Agreed.

> If we only accept XML element declarations (body and headers), it will
> require that we devise a (possibly simple and limited) mapping to
> non-XML stuff for use with HTTP and MIME (for exampe for URL
parameters
> and HTML form encoding). 

Agreed. 

> If we're happy with this, we will also require
> that all type systems that might be used in WSDL declare XML elements
> and we need to say so in the spec. 

Do we need to preclude someone from introducing a new type system and a
new binding as a pair? Do we need to restrict bindings to operating only
over Infoset descriptions of messages?

> I don't see that as much of a
> problem, it is certainly possible for this to work with SOAP Encoding
> and SOAP Data Model. 

[No comment :-)]

> It may be awkward if we have a nice non-XML data
> model and a binding that uses it and we need to go through an XML
> conversion step in order to describe this in WSDL.

It may be awkward if someone has a non-XML model but has to map to the
Infoset to use WSDL? To use pre-defined bindings? 

> If we accept XML element declarations and other stuff as well (i.e.
> there are other kinds of stuff in a message than just header and body
> XML element information items), we'll need an example for that in
> Appendix E.

Are you volunteering? :-)

> Hope it helps,
> 
>                    Jacek Kopecky
> 
>                    Senior Architect
>                    Systinet Corporation
>                    http://www.systinet.com/
> 
> [1]
>
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12.html#othe
r-
> schemalang
> 
Received on Sunday, 21 September 2003 00:33:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:26 GMT