- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 16:48:23 -0700
- To: "Roland Merrick" <roland_merrick@uk.ibm.com>
- Cc: <w3c-forms@w3.org>, <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
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
Received on Wednesday, 11 May 2005 23:48:41 UTC