- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 13:56:15 -0700
- To: <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, <public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org>
Thanks for your comment. The WS Description Working Group tracked this as a Last Call comment LC337 [1]. The Working Group agreed to fix the problem in the following manner: - Copy the content of section 2.2 of the Describing Media Types for Binary Content note (a product of this WG) into part two, - point the definition of whttp:inputSerialization, whttp:outputSerialization, and whttp:faultSerialization at that definition, - check other references to these serialization properties to insure that they do not improperly restrict serialization to a single mime type. The net effect is that you will be able to specify alternative media types in the whttp:*serialization attributes. If we don't hear otherwise within two weeks, we will assume this satisfies your concern. [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/lc-issues/issues.html#LC337 > -----Original Message----- > From: public-ws-desc-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-desc- > comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Kendall Clark > Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 8:44 AM > To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org > Cc: Dan Connolly > Subject: fault serialization > > > WS-Desc, > > I'm writing on behalf of DAWG, which is using WSDL 2.0 to specify the > SPARQL > Protocol for RDF [1]. We have a couple of LC comments about WSDL 2.0, > and > I'll be sending each one in a separate message. > > We'd like to avoid having to require a particular fault serialization > type > in our HTTP bindings. That is, we anticipate SPARQL services being > free to > serialize fault messages in several different Media Types: plain text, > HTML, > XML, RDF, etc. > > If whttp:faultSerialization is a required property and the default > value > doesn't describe our service, what alternative do we have? > > Hugo Haas responded to my initial comments thus: > > Maybe the fault serialization should be a property of the Binding > Fault > and Binding Fault Reference components, rather than of the Binding > Operation, which would solve your problem. > > There may be other design choices as well. > > Cheers, > Kendall Clark > > [1] http://www.w3.org/sw/2001/DataAccess/proto-wd/ > > -- > In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary > act. > --George Orwell >
Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2005 20:57:50 UTC