- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 20:07:08 +0100
- To: public-ws-desc-comments@w3.org
Hi all, a last call comment on the 2005 last call draft of the adjuncts: Section 6.6.2 in adjuncts defines {http input serialization}, {http output serialization} and {http fault serialization} to describe the content type of the messages. It does so on the binding operation component level. I believe the binding message reference and binding fault reference components would be a better place for these properties; and the current places could be dropped or they could carry defaults. So instead of <binding ...> <operation ... whttp:outputSerialization="image/jpeg" /> </binding> we'd have <binding ...> <operation ... > <output whttp:serialization="image/jpeg" /> </operation> </binding> This would allow us to define different serializations for different output messages (or different input messages or different faults). Granted, none of our MEPs have multiple input messages or multiple output messages, but there can always be multiple faults. It doesn't seem to me that the current limitation to a single serialization format for all inputs, other for all outputs and yet another for all faults, is in any way useful. In fact, to me it seems fairly strange. Hope it makes sense, Jacek Kopecky
Received on Tuesday, 6 September 2005 19:07:28 UTC