W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2001

Re: Announce: A Busy Developer's Guide to SOAP 1.1

From: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 14:33:33 +0100
Message-ID: <002f01c0b854$dbf69d70$0200a8c0@greyarea>
To: "Fredrik Lundh" <fredrik@pythonware.com>, "Dave Winer" <dave@userland.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: "Fredrik Lundh" <fredrik@pythonware.com>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>; "Dave Winer" <dave@userland.com>;
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 10:17 AM
Subject: Re: Announce: A Busy Developer's Guide to SOAP 1.1

> martin wrote:
> > 2.    xsd:base64 is not a type name. It should be xsd:base64Binary[2]
> "SOAP-ENC:base64", according to the SOAP specification
> (section 5.2.3)

OK. Whatever, xsd:base64 is still wrong.

> > 5.    You use xsi:type on all your parameter serializations. Why is
> > Seems to me you only need xsi:type when the parameter is a COM
> > any/fill in your own dynamically typed thingy here. When the parameter
> > always a double why specify in the payload, won't the
> > marshaller/unmarshaller know what to do
> not if you're using a dynamically typed language, and don't want
> to write a WSDL/IDL parser (nor write WSDL/IDL descriptors for
> everything you want to publish, for that matter).

Agreed. Hence my 'fill in your own dynamically typed thingy here'. My point
is that the document implies that xsi:type will always be used whereas my
feeling is it will only be used in dynamically typed systems... If the
document is written from the perspective that all systems are dynamically
typed then it should say so.

> (this works perfectly well in XML-RPC...)
> > I know you guys are busy developers :-) but you might like to update to
> > Proposed Recommendation version of XML Schema given that you've
> > this document after the PR Schema spec[4-6] was published. The namespace
> > uris are;
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema
> >
> > and
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance
> note that there are (at least) two SOAP 1.1 specifications out there;
> the one from April 18 uses the old namespaces, the W3C version from
> May 8 uses the new namespaces.

I know about both SOAP docs, I was just suggesting the document might like
to use the new namespace....

Received on Thursday, 29 March 2001 08:34:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:12 UTC