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

RE: [LC75f] FW: WSDL 2.0 LC Comments

From: Rogers, Tony <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:07:48 +1000
Message-ID: <7997F38251504E43B38435DAF917887F40C57A@ausyms23.ca.com>
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Could / should we also specify that such attributes must not be included in a digital signature? Or, at least, not in a signature for the element so qualified? That would permit us to add such attributes to a message, if necessary.

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org on behalf of Jonathan Marsh 
	Sent: Thu 16-Jun-05 8:22 
	To: www-ws-desc@w3.org 
	Subject: [LC75f] FW: WSDL 2.0 LC Comments

	More on our comment requesting that (at least some) attributes be
	allowed on the RPC wrapper.
	I was incorrect in my comment that we commonly sign the children of
	soap:Body, instead we most often sign the entire soap:Body element.
	However, the prohibition against attributes may prohibit future
	scenarios (signing different parts of the message as an example).  The
	reasons for prohibiting them are unclear.  If it is to preserve a clean
	one-to-one mapping between children elements and parameters, that can be
	accomplished through mechanisms that don't rule out potential useful
	cases.  In a similar case the WG recieved comments from I18N about the
	inability to put xml:lang on wsdl:documentation.
	Another mechanism to prevent attributes from carrying application data
	that might reasonable appear in a function signature would be to allow
	only extension attributes (namespace qualified), and to specifically
	note the intention that these attributes are allowed for infrastructure
	purposes and do not appear (e.g.) as parameters in the wrpc:signature.
	-----Original Message-----
	From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org
	[mailto:public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan
	Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 3:37 PM
	To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
	Subject: RE: WSDL 2.0 LC Comments
	We accept the resolutions to all of the issues except the 5 noted below:
	> > -----
	> > Section 2.4.2 RPC Style is unclear as to whether local element
	> > children
	> > may contain extension attributes.  Such attributes should be
	> > explicitly
	> > allowed; for instance as identifiers to enable the element to be
	> > signed
	> > (xml:id, wsu:Id).
	> The WG does not believe the current text precludes extension
	> attributes and closed this issue (LC75f) [9] without action.
	> [9] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC75f
	Our issue text was apparently not very clear.  We commonly sign the
	children of <soap:Body>, and to do this requires the ability to add
	@wsu:Id.  The statement "The complex type that defines the body of an
	input or an output element MUST NOT contain any attributes" precludes
	this.  Please allow at least extension attributes to be added.
Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2005 23:07:57 UTC

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