- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 14:53:03 -0700
- To: "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
The Working Group is still deliberating two of your comments, but the others have been resolved as indicated below. We'll assume you agree with our resolutions unless we hear from you by Oct 21st. > -----Original Message----- > From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc- > comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Marc Hadley > Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 7:19 AM > To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > Subject: Fwd: Review of WSDL 2.0 Pt 3 Last Call WD > > > Forwarding on behalf of the XML Protocol WG. > > regards, > Marc. > > Begin forwarded message: > > > Resent-From: w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org > > From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM> > > Date: September 6, 2004 10:30:24 PM EDT > > To: "'w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org'" <w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org> > > Subject: Review of WSDL 2.0 Pt 3 Last Call WD > > > > > > I have an action to review WSDL 2.0 Part 3[1]. Here are my comments. > > > > Marc. > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-bindings-20040803/ > > > > - Section 2 WSDL SOAP Binding > > > > "Notice that there are no default binding rules defined for Interface > > Fault components by this binding. Thus, if a given Interface component > > has any Fault components, then such Interface components MUST be bound > > via Binding components which indicate a specific interface and contain > > as many Binding Fault components as there are Fault components in the > > Interface Fault component." > > > > Comment: It's unclear why default binding rules are not defined for > > fault components. The additional information that would be required is > > minimal and this feature would be useful. [See http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC29a] The rationale for omitting default binding rules for fault components is that there is no good default value for code and subcode, and thus defaults have negligible value. We agree to add this rationale to the spec. See the latest editors draft to verify the fix; http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-bindings. html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8 > > - Section 2.6 Declaring SOAP Modules > > > > Comment: The relationship between SOAP Modules declared in the binding > > and features declared in the interface is unclear. From the SOAP 1.2 > > Rec (section 3.3): "A SOAP module realizes zero or more SOAP > > features". I would expect a similar relationship in WSDL such that a > > SOAP module in a binding would reference one or more features in the > > interface, a module being the binding of those features to the > > protocol. [See http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC29b] We're still working on this one. > > - Section 3 WSDL HTTP Binding > > > > "Notice that there are no default binding rules defined for Fault > > components by this binding." > > > > Comment: Similar to the case for the SOAP binding, it's unclear why > > the extra step was not taken to define such default binding rules. [See http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC29c] Similar to the resolution for your first comment above, there is no good default value for the HTTP status code. We resolved it as we did for the SOAP case, by adding a similar rationale to the HTTP binding. See the latest editors draft to verify the fix; http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-bindings. html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8 > > - Section 3.3 Default Binding Rules > > > > "Mechanisms that are outside the scope of this specification MAY > > modify the serialization format of the instance data corresponding to > > the output message. An example of such modification is the combination > > of the serialization as application/x-www-form-urlencoded and the > > SOAP-Response Message Exchange Pattern ([SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Adjuncts], > > Section 6.3)." > > > > Comment: More detail required here, it's not clear what the example is > > trying to illustrate. [See http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC29d] We're still working on this one. > > - Section 3.8.1.1 Case of elements cited in whttp:location attribute > > > > "When constructing the request URI, each pair of curly braces (and > > enclosed element name) is replaced by the corresponding content of the > > element." > > > > Comment: What is the expected behavior when the element is not present > > in the instance data or is nil. The rules in section 3.9.1 appear to > > allow both things to happen. [See http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC29e] The Working Group agrees to clarify the behavior in this case. We will make it an error for instance documents to have elements with xsi:nil=true; or for elements to have nil values when trying to auto-generate parameters. The spec already says what happens if the element is not present in the instance data. > > - Section 3.8.3 Serialization as "multipart/form-data" > > > > Comment: What is the expected serialization of an element that is nil > > in the instance data ? An empty part, an omitted part ? [See http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC29f] We agree to add a similar clarification for this case as well. See the latest editors draft to verify the fix; http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-bindings. html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8 > > - Section 3.9 Operation Styles > > > > Comment: The relationship between the operation styles defined in this > > section to the serializations defined in section 3.8 would be > > clarified by listing the permitted serializations for each style. > > Currently the serializations list the allowed style but not the other > > way round. Consider switching the order of 3.8 and 3.9. [See http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC29g] We delegated this to the editors as editorial, and they resolved it. See the latest editors draft to verify the fix; http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-bindings. html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8 > > Comment: Should there be a style defined to match the serialization > > defined in 3.8.2 ? [See http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC29h] The Working Group was unable to find a compelling need to define such a style. We made no change to the spec in this case. Thanks again for your comments, and we hope to resolve the remaining two open issues promptly.
Received on Thursday, 7 October 2004 21:53:27 UTC