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

RE: encodingStyle

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 17:54:11 -0000
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF0FFF1E9E@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

As I now understand it, in WSDL 2.0 the schema employed to describe the data being exchanged will also describe the actual serialisation of the data 'on the wire'.

Doesn't this remove the ability for the same infoset to be exchanged using different serialisations:  XML text, MTOM, or whatever and necessitate a new schema /language/ just to support a different message encoding ? 

It seems to me that there was real benefit in encodingStyle: multiple bindings could easily present the same data but exchanged over different transports *and* serialisations.

Thanks for your patience and sorry if i'm going over well trodden ground here!

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of paul.downey@bt.com
Sent: 19 December 2003 11:18
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: encodingStyle



Following the call yesterday, i'm confused why we would need to invent a new
schema language just to represent section 5 encoded messages when it's just
a flag ATM. 

I'm also puzzled how other, non-XML serialisations for SOAP could be
supported in the future - i'm guessing you'd need to invent a whole new 
SOAP binding ?

Can someone please point me at the reasoning how we lost the encodingStyle
on the SOAP binding ?

Paul

-- 
Paul Sumner Downey
Web Services Integration
BT Exact
+44(0)1442 296260
Received on Thursday, 8 January 2004 12:54:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:28 GMT