RE: XForms comments on (WSDL) Version 2.0 Part 3: Bindings

Greetings Jonathan, appologies for a tardy response -- and I did see the 
presumptive close -- but yes your resolution is acceptable to the XForms 
Working Group. 

Regards, Roland



"Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com> 
12/05/2005 00:48

To
Roland Merrick/UK/IBM@IBMGB
cc
<w3c-forms@w3.org>, <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
Subject
RE: XForms comments on (WSDL) Version 2.0 Part 3: Bindings






Thank you for your comment.  We have incorporated the resolutions
detailed below into the latest Working Drafts [1, 2].  We expect to have
another brief Last Call period soon.  We'll assume you are satisfied
with the resolutions below unless we hear from you within two weeks.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-wsdl20-20050510
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-wsdl20-adjuncts-20050510

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc-
> comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Roland Merrick
> Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 2:45 AM
> To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
> Cc: w3c-forms@w3.org
> Subject: XForms comments on (WSDL) Version 2.0 Part 3: Bindings
> 
> 
> Greetings, the XForms Working Group have reviewed the serialization
> section of Web Services Description Language (WSDL) Version 2.0 Part
> 3: Bindings [1] as requested. We have the following comments:
> 
> 1 - In 3.8.1 Serialization as "application/x-www-form-urlencoded" it
> states that escaping MUST be defined as in XForms, so not much
> difference here. However, WSDL uses the ampersand (&) character as a
> separator between pairs of parameters. XForms allows the specification
> of either ampersand (&) or semi-colon (;) as the  separator with semi-
> colon being the default [2]. This choice was introduced following
> comments on the Last Call Draft published in January 2002.

Tracked as LC69a [3], the WG agreed to adopt the proposal in [4] to
address this issue, namely to define a mechanism for choosing the
separator character.

[3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC69a
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0013.html

> 2 - WSDL 2.0 makes no mention of "multipart/related", we do not know
> if this is a problem but it is supported by XForms [3]

Tracked as LC69b [5], the WG examined this again but did not feel it was
a high priority to support multipart/related.  An extension could be
provided for this kind of functionality later on if one so desired.  A
summary of the rationale can be found here [6].

[5] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC69a
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Apr/0049.html

> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-wsdl20-bindings-
> 20040803/#_http_serialization
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms/slice3.html#structure-model-submission
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms/slice11.html#serialize-multipart
> 
> Regards, Roland