- From: <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:07:32 -0400
- To: www-ws-desc@w3.org, ruellan@crf.canon.fr
Summary of Issues Issue 5: Issue 5: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html#x5 SOAP allows the encodingStyle attribute on any element of the message. The WSDL 1.1 SOAP binding only allows the encodingStyle attribute on the body element. Issue 30: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html#x30 There are two parts to this issue: 30a: WSDL 1.1 allows a list of URIs as the value of the encodingStyle attribute, but SOAP 1.2 only allows a single URI. 30b: Same as #5. Proposed Resolutions 1. Close issue #5 as a duplicate of #30. 2. Issue 30a This is not really a problem, since when describing a SOAP 1.2 message, just use a single URI in the WSDL. Continue to use a list of URIs to describe SOAP 1.1 messages. I think the point of this issue is really whether we should also restrict the encodingStyle value to be a single URI in WSDL 1.2. Herve Ruellan should confirm that this is the correct interpretation. I recommend we restrict the value of encodingStyle to be a single URI since in practice people seem to be using a single URI. Several interop problems have arisen in the area of encoding style so having a single URI is a useful simplification. Also, since SOAP 1.2 has adopted this position, it seems overkill to maintain support for lists of URIs in WSDL. 3. Issue 30b Pick one of the following solutions. I recommend 3.1. 3.1 Leave this as a limitation of WSDL. This is acceptable if we believe that most messages will use a single encoding style. This appears to be the approach that is being taken by WS-I.org. 3.2 Extend the SOAP binding to allow an encoding style to be specified for each message part. This makes sense if we believe that individual message parts will have a single encoding style. The syntax of the extension is deferred to the SOAP binding specification. Arthur Ryman
Received on Tuesday, 25 June 2002 12:08:01 UTC