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

Re: WSDL 1.2 drops use="encoded"

From: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 12:23:24 -0500
Message-ID: <3E68D58C.8080401@datapower.com>
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
CC: XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

> If you and other people come to one of the groups and say you need SOAP
> 1.2 Encoding supported directly in WSDL 1.2 because you actually need
> SOAP Encoding, the groups would probably work on the schema language. I
> don't think this is an issue of resources because I'd happily volunteer
> to do an initial proposal, as I believe I've said before.

Defining a new schema language, to say nothing of hoping for widespread 
support for it within existing WSDL tools, is a fool's errand.  No thanks.

> The alternative to inventing a SOAP Data Model Schema Language was to
> specify precisely how XML Schema works with use="encoded", which I
> believe would have been much more work to get right and sort out all the
> corner cases.

I disagree.  An alternative would be to leave "use=encoded" and require 
that the encdoingStyle URI be defined by the XMLP WG.  This makes sense: 
  if you are using an encoding style to "modify" the schema, then the 
obligation is on the modifier, not the WSDL group, to define that 
modification.

(Note that there is no requirement that the "modification" be described 
in XML, although the idea of using an XSLT script to transform an XML 
Schema so that the SOAP RPC attributes are natively supported is kind of 
interesting...)

> So, voice your needs!

This has two answers.  The first is that I am fortunate to have a public 
forum in which to express some views,
and have done so a couple of times:
     1.  http://www.xml.com/pub/a/ws/2002/11/20/ends.html
     2.  http://www.xml.com/pub/a/ws/2003/03/04/endpoints.html

Perhaps I flatter myself too much to think that WSDL and XMLP folks read 
them.

The second can be found just below.

 > Many (including myself) seem to share the
> understanding that people are shying away from SOAP Encoding. This may
> be because XML is just sufficient, or it may be because SOAP Encoding
> doesn't play nicely with XML Schema and there are no alternatives as
> yet.

Developers are being forced away from SOAP RPC because vendors are 
killing it off.  (I just looked at the XMLP and WSDL WG membereships to 
confirm, and they are clearly dominated by ISV's who develop SOAP/WSDL 
products, rather than developers who use such products.)

I won't comment on motivations, but I suspect that looking through the 
mailing lists at the time that XMLP decided to split SOAP encoding off 
into a separate document might be informative.  At any rate, it was 
clear to me that once that was done, the writing was on the wall.  The 
only surprise is how quickly it's happened.

> Hope we don't end up with any hard feelings,

On a personal level?  Certainly not.
	/r$
Received on Friday, 7 March 2003 12:23:31 GMT

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