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

RE: LC124

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2005 08:59:10 -0700
Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF10F1018C@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I'm not sure what that has to do with Arthur's concern.  Can you
elaborate?

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr]
> Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 7:57 AM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: Arthur Ryman; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: LC124
> 
> 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 16:00:24 GMT

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