W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > February 2003

Re: WSDL 1.2 drops use="encoded"

From: Simon Fell <soap@zaks.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:34:56 -0800
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <24uq5vk7si977dcvu6kcnkcgofh88usc88@4ax.com>

so can you do xsd:choice between an attribute (href), and child
elements ?

I'm more than a little confused at this point.

Under the proposal, will i be able to describe in WSDL 
i) all soap encoded messages
ii) some soap encoded messages, but not all
iii) a particular serialization of an encoded message, but not all
valid serializations
iv) no soap encoded messages.

without a use attribute, how does the encodingStyle attribute get set
in the result SOAP messages ?


On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 00:07:00 +1300, in soap you wrote:

>My understanding of this proposal is that for all cases the schema 
>generated must be correct to match the message content. This means that 
>anything that can be a multiref must have id/ref attributes defined in 
>its schema definition. This is so the message matches "literal". 
>However, encodingStyle="...soapenc1.2..." indicates that the 
>soapencoding 1.2 rules (or 1.1) should be applied, which is basically 
>the extra layer of interpretation above the schema definition such as 
>what a multiref is.
>This is a lot tighter than the current spec where the schema is more of 
>an abstract definition of types when use="encoded", usually not 
>including ref/id attributes or minOccurs="0" in complex types, and the 
>prose definition of the encoding takes precedence over the schema. The 
>onus then moves to the WSDL generation tools to be much more precise in 
>what they generate. Is this correct?
>What about soapenc 1.1 arrays? Or does WSDL 1.2 no longer support 
>soapenc 1.1? Is there not a problem "literal"ly defining arrays in 
>soapenc 1.1 because there is no way to have a default value for a QName 
>What I'm not sure of is the benefit of this. Because of the use of 
>style="rpc" the document/message can't be validated against the schema 
>anyway. The wrapper element which is the RPC element in the call is not 
>described in the schema but only in the WSDL and so a schema parser may 
>not be able to validate the message in the rpc case.
>Rich Salz wrote:
>>Just to make sure I understand, is the following statement accurate:
>>   WSDL 1.2 cannot describe SOAP 1.1 "section 5" messages
>>   (and therefore presumably "RPC encoding" of SOAP 1.2)
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 21:34:27 UTC

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