W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > December 2004

RE: wsdli:wsdlLocation WSDL-version independent

From: Liu, Kevin <kevin.liu@sap.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:25:36 +0100
Message-ID: <99CA63DD941EDC4EBA897048D9B0061D0B1C14FD@uspalx20a.pal.sap.corp>
To: "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>, "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

+1 to Jonathan's proposed change to the spec.  

I don't see any downside of allowing wsdlLocation to point to wsdl11
document, or any other version of wsdl. 

Best Regards,
Kevin
 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] 
>Sent: Friday, Dec 17, 2004 12:17 PM
>To: Jonathan Marsh; www-ws-desc@w3.org
>Subject: RE: wsdli:wsdlLocation WSDL-version independent
>
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] 
>>Sent: Friday, Dec 17, 2004 12:02 PM
>>To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
>>Subject: wsdli:wsdlLocation WSDL-version independent
>>
>>
>>
>>The WS-Addressing WG defines a structure representing an EndPoint
>>Reference (EPR).  Part of that structure are optional Service and
>>Endpoint QNames.  To resolve those QNames to a particular WSDL 
>>(when the
>>client does not already have it), a link to the WSDL is useful.
>>
>>The WS-Addressing WG wants to make use of wsdli:wsdlLocation 
>to provide
>>some locations where an appropriate WSDL might be found [1].  The
>>definition of wsdlLocation [2] does not appear to specifically limit
>>it's use to WSDL 2.0 documents - it just says "WSDL 
>>documents".  This is
>>precisely what WS-A wants - to be able to put WSDL 1.1 locations, WSDL
>>2.0 locations, or possibly a combination of both 1.1 and 2.0 locations
>>in the single attribute.  It's not clear whether this was foreseen and
>>blessed by the WSDL WG though.
>
>IMO, since we are using a different namespace for wsdlLocation
>independent of the WSDL 2.0 namespace, technically, we are not
>suggesting that the referred documents by wsdlLocation are 
>restricted to
>WSDL 2.0 documents anyway. Therefore, the current reading of the spec,
>as you indicate, does not prohibit WSDL 1.1 use. 
>
>Although it may not be foreseen, it is a good thing. :-)
>
>>
>>Would the WG object to WS-Addressing suggesting authors use
>>wsdli:wsdlLocation in this manner?  If so would it be helpful to make
>>this explicit in the draft?
>
>I am not sure what we need to change in the spec as it is not
>prohibitive. It would be awkward to refer to WSDL 1.1 explicitly, but
>perhaps we could say something like: 
>
>"...the second a hint as to the location of a WSDL document defining
>WSDL components for that namespace name, irrespective of the WSDL
>document's version". 
>
>--umit
>
>
>>
>>[1]
>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2004De
>c/0080.ht
>ml 
>[2]
>http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20.
html?cont
ent-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#wsdllocation
Received on Friday, 17 December 2004 21:26:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:33 GMT