- From: Gaertner, Dietmar <Dietmar.Gaertner@softwareag.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 19:50:24 +0200
- To: "'www-ws-desc@w3.org'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
I took an action item in today's telcon to formulate a possible new issue on whether the "use" attribute isn't redudant and can be eliminated. This has been discussed (among others) in the soaptf [1]. Following is the "use" attribute rationale extracted and slightly re-formulated. Can the "use" attribute be eliminated? -------------------------------------- The "use" attribute (soap:body, soap:header and soap:headerfault element) has possible values: "literal" and "encoded". The following combinations of style/use are possible: document/literal - makes sense document/encoded - makes sense (e.g. for docs using the SOAP data model) rpc/literal - does this make sense? Probably not, because RPC implies a special encoding or format. rpc/encoded - makes sense (RPC even requires encoded) Given that there can be used different encoding styles, and when we have use="encoded" also encodingStyle="..." has to be specified, isn't use="encoded" redundant? Even more, - doesn't encodingStyle="someURI" imply use="encoded" - and isn't a missing encodingStyle or encodingStyle="" equivalent to use="literal"? Proposal: As the "use" attribute appears to be redundant eliminate it and just use the "encodingStyle" attribute to express "literal" via an empty string value and "encoded" via a non-empty string value. See also: Issue 45 [2] and 48 [3]; "use" attribute of [...] should be optional and Arthur's encodingStyle proposal [4]. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0039.html [2] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html#x45 [3] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html#x48 [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Sep/0018.html Regards, Dietmar.
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 13:50:28 UTC