RE: SOAP Binding: Is body/@use required?

I am sorry for the duplicate. This is already captured in Issue 48 [1]
titled:

    "use" attribute of "soap:body" should be optional

However, I think the right thing to do is to make @use required, but
perhaps that will become clearer as we work through other SOAP binding
issues.

--Jeff

[1]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html#
x48

-----Original Message-----
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 04:10:27 -0700
From: "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Subject: SOAP Binding: Is body/@use required?

The WSDL 1.1 specification appears inconsistent about whether the @use
attribute information item (AII) is required or optional on the SOAP
binding body element information item (EII).

In Section 3.2, the pseudo-schema does not have a question mark after
soap:body/@use AII for wsdl:input or wsdl:output, indicating that the
AII is REQUIRED.

In Section 3.5, the pseudo-schema has a question mark after
soap:body/@use AII for both wsdl:input and wsdl:output, indicating that
the AII is OPTIONAL.

In Section 3.5, the following prose appears: 

            "The required use attribute indicates whether the message
parts are encoded using some encoding rules, or whether the parts define
the concrete schema of the message."

Section 3.5 does not specify behavior if the @use AII is absent.

In Section A4.2, in the schema for the SOAP binding, the @use AII is
marked OPTIONAL.

   <complexType name="bodyType">
      <attribute name="encodingStyle" type="uriReference"
use="optional"/>
      <attribute name="parts" type="NMTOKENS" use="optional"/>
      <attribute name="use" type="soap:useChoice" use="optional"/>
      <attribute name="namespace" type="uriReference" use="optional"/>
   </complexType>

The @use AII is apparently required for the SOAP binding fault, header,
and headerfault EII's. 

Issue 1: Is the @use AII optional or required for the soap:body EII?

Issue 2: If it is optional, what is the default behavior if it is
absent?

Received on Thursday, 6 June 2002 14:12:55 UTC