W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > July 2005

Re: LC124

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2005 16:56:33 +0200
To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>, www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-id: <42CD42A1.6040809@crf.canon.fr>

SOAP encoding was carried over from SOAP 1.1 to SOAP 1.2 as a soon 
obsolete artifact. Schema did exist at that time.

JJ.

David Orchard wrote:

> SOAP encoding was created because Schema didn't exist and the original 
> goal was to do "object access" so types including graphs were needed. 
>  I don't understand the point..
>
>  
>
> Can you say what is insufficient about the latest round of definitions 
> for "ignoreUnknowns"?  They haven't pointed to conference papers for 
> their definitions.
>
>  
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] 
> *On Behalf Of *Arthur Ryman
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 06, 2005 3:33 PM
> *To:* www-ws-desc@w3.org
> *Subject:* LC124
>
>  
>
>
> I've been discussing LC124 with my colleagues and I thought I'd post 
> an update in case we discuss this tomorrow.
>
> 1. In general, we agree the versioning is important, and we'd like the 
> problem addressed.
> 2. We are concerned that this is really an XML Schema problem and that 
> WSDL is probably not the right place to address it. There is work 
> going on now in the Schema WG. There are several solutions being 
> proposed and it would be premature for WSDL to adopt the 
> validate-twice solution (although that is a strong contender). As a 
> cautionary tale, the creative use of Schema with SOAP Encoding was 
> cited. The schema didn't really describe the message. We don't want a 
> repeat in WSDL 2.0. We are concerned about locking in a solution that 
> may not agree with the direction of Schema.
> 3. The boolean nature of ignoreUnknowns is not very useful. In many 
> scenarios, it is important to know if the unknown content is preserved 
> (e.g. passed on) or even processed.
> 4. There is no normative document that describes the proposed 
> processing algorithm. Who will write that? (pointing to conference 
> papers is not adequate). The WSDL spec should only cite other specs 
> for Core features.
>
> I need more time to establish a company position since this is 
> vacation season. I'll try to move this issue forward though.
>
>
> 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/
>
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2005 14:57:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:36 GMT