Re: {http cookies} REQUIRED?

Jonathan,

I was translating the following spec text into the schema:

{http cookies} REQUIRED. A xs:boolean to the Binding component.

My interprettation is that when the when SOAP extension is present, the 
{http cookies} property is required, but of course this only makes sense 
for SOAP over HTTP. I agree the spec should be clarified.

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
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



"Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
06/20/2006 09:14 AM

To
<www-ws-desc@w3.org>
cc

Subject
{http cookies} REQUIRED?






I noticed from Arthur?s updates to the interchange format that 
BindingOperation.{http cookies} is required when the SOAP binding is 
engaged.  The text before that makes it sound optional (e.g. ?may?, 
?allowed?.)  I think Arthur?s reading is probably most nearly literally 
correct, but if so, the ?may? and ?allowed? might need to be strengthened 
a little.  But I wonder if this reading is really what we intended.
 
The bigger question is, whether support for the defined subset of {http *} 
properties are required by all implementations of the SOAP binding or 
whether the whttp:* attributes are an ?optional extension? of the SOAP 
binding.  The latter seems a bit strange, as we don?t seem to require 
implementations to support a {soap underlying protocol} value of 
?http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/bindings/HTTP/?, yet everyone is required 
populate the {http cookies} property, which is called out as specifically 
only having meaning when used with 
?http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/bindings/HTTP/?.
 
Not sure what the right solution is, but it seems like we should at least 
make the {http *} properties optional in the component model unless the 
right {soap underlying protocol} is in use.  More difficult but possibly 
better would be to figure out how to treat this ?nested? extension the 
same as the top-level ones.
 
 [  Jonathan Marsh  ][  jmarsh@microsoft.com  ][  
http://auburnmarshes.spaces.msn.com  ]