W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > July 2002


From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:53:05 -0700
Message-ID: <2E33960095B58E40A4D3345AB9F65EC1082D00A9@win-msg-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Issue 18 [1] notes that the @transport attribute information item (AII)
of the soap:binding element information item (EII) is shown as optional
by the XML Schema but is listed as required by the prose. All examples
of soap:binding include @transport.

In the last-call for SOAP 1.2, Part 2 [2], the SOAP binding for HTTP
states that implementations should use HTTP 1.1 but may use HTTP 1.0.

To avoid ambiguity, I propose that the @transport AII be mandatory. For
the SOAP 1.2 binding, we may consider defining separate values for
@transport to indicate whether HTTP 1.1 or HTTP 1.0 is used.

Issue 28 [2] raises the concern that @transport may be poorly named
since: (a) there may be several bindings for a given transport, and (b)
@transport does not allow specifying binding-specific options.

Regarding (a), making @transport an AII of a binding EII indicates the
correct scoping of the transport as a parameter of the binding. Since
this AII indicates the transport used by a specific binding, "transport"
is a reasonable name.

Regarding (b), a clean design would indicate other binding parameters
using other AII or children. @transport conveys a single parameter of
the binding.

I propose no changes in response to Issue 28.


[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part2-20020626/#soapinhttp 
Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2002 18:54:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:24 UTC