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

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

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 11:03:39 +0200
Message-ID: <3D1AD4EB.8216B4A@crf.canon.fr>
To: ryman@ca.ibm.com
CC: www-ws-desc@w3.org, ruellan@crf.canon.fr

I agree with restricting the value of encodingStyle to be a single URI.
Multiple URIs are no longer supported by SOAP 1.2. Mutliple URIs were supported
by SOAP 1.1, but hardly ever used. (The perceived semantics of multiple URIs
was unclear. The intended semantics was a list of overlapping, more-to-less
specific encoding styles.)

I think only option 3.2 is available, since SOAP 1.2 only allows the
encodingStyle AII on SOAP header blocks, SOAP body blocks and the SOAP fault
Detail element (and all their descendants).

Does this make sense?


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 Thursday, 27 June 2002 05:04:24 UTC

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