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

Re: Proposal to Resolve encodingStyle Issues #5 and #30

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 19:41:00 +0200 (CEST)
To: ryman@ca.ibm.com
cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0206251919200.8040-100000@mail.idoox.com>

 I agree issue 5 should be closed as a dupe of 30.
 On 30a, this depends on whether we want to produce SOAP 1.1
binding (or SOAP binding suitable for both 1.1 and 1.2) or 
whether we only want to support SOAP 1.2 in our binding. 
 I prefer only supporting SOAP 1.2 in our WSDL 1.2 SOAP binding, 
therefore I also prefer making encodingStyle a URI, not a list of 

 Following is a short analysis of the situation in 30b:
 SOAP 1.2 doesn't allow encodingStyle attribute on the Body
element. (see [1]) Therefore the encoding style affects the
various message parts (or in RPC it affects the RPC wrapper
element). Your proposed solution 3.1 would have to be reworded to
match that, but otherwise the solutions 3.1 and 3.2 still are our
 On the other hand, I believe that if any encoding style allows
changes of encodingStyle in the middle of the data, it must
specify how such changes are handled. So we only need to specify
the outermost encodingStyle and the data schema itself may allow
other encodingStyle changes. Thinking this way (multiple encoding
styles in one message) implies preference to solution 3.2 plus
some text saying that the schema may allow encodingStyle changes.
 SOAP 1.2 Encoding doesn't explicitly allow encodingStyle

 To summarize, I believe we have the options 3.1 or an extended 

 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x194

On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 ryman@ca.ibm.com wrote:

 > 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 13:41:03 UTC

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