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

Re: WSDL 1.2 drops use="encoded"

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 22:51:34 +0600
Message-ID: <023d01c2e1a5$2806e870$6f00a8c0@lankabook2>
To: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>, "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Hi Rich,

> The definitive tone of Don's message made me go back and re-read the
> proposal.  I still think I'm right.  If only "literal" is supported, than
> the message schema must exactly describe the message: no multiref strings,
> etc., unless explicit encoded into the schema.  Is that correct?

Yes.

> If I have an operation
>     int foo(const char* a, const char* b)
> then using SOAP encoding, the body would look like
>    <SOAP:Body>
>     <foo xmlns="....">
>      <a href="#b"/>
>      <b>cloned string</b>
>    </foo>
>
> But the schema would look like foo as a complex element with sub-elements
> a and b as xsd:string.
>
> Doesn't this become impossible with "encoded" is dropped?  Even if "this"
> just means the paragraph before this one?

Yes - the argument was that if if graph structures are to be serialized
then it must be done so by picking a serialization in the schema. IMHO
that's lousy and stinks, but that's the decision. It actually originated
in WS-I when it picked doc/lit (and rpc/lit? - not sure) as the supported
approaches.

Sanjiva.
Received on Monday, 3 March 2003 11:54:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:13 GMT