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

Re: wsdli:wsdlLocation WSDL-version independent

From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 11:04:27 -0500
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF2450612C.796FC9E5-ON85256F6D.00787F42-85256F6E.00584E3D@ca.ibm.com>

Sounds reasonable since the application can easily determine the version 
of the retrieved document. However, I don't understand the "combining" 
bit. How can the location point at 2 documents? Is there a concrete 
proposal? Wouldn't it be better to be able to identify the version so the 
application can retrieve the preferred version?

Arthur Ryman,
Rational Desktop Tools Development

phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca
intranet: http://labweb.torolab.ibm.com/DRY6/

"Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
12/17/2004 03:01 PM


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.

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?

Received on Saturday, 18 December 2004 16:05:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:51 UTC