- From: <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 09:01:13 -0400
- To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: ruellan@crf.canon.fr, www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
Accordingly to http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/ the encodingStyle
attribute can occur on any child element of a header, body, or detail.
Therefore 3.2 allows you to describe the message more faithfully.
Is the freedom to allow multiple encoding styles within a single message
useful, or is it as useless as allowing a list of encodingStyle URIs was?
FYI, I have created messages that combine literal and SOAP encoding in a
single message, but they don't interoperate with .NET. Therefore I wonder
if in the quest for interop the industry will settle on using a single
encoding style within a message.
Arthur Ryman
"Jean-Jacques
Moreau" To: Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
<moreau@crf.cano cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, ruellan@crf.canon.fr
n.fr> Subject: Re: Proposal to Resolve encodingStyle Issues #5 and #30
Sent by:
www-ws-desc-requ
est@w3.org
06/27/2002 05:03
AM
Please respond
to "Jean-Jacques
Moreau"
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?
Jean-Jacques.
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 09:06:38 UTC