- From: <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 15:28:47 -0400
- To: "Gaertner, Dietmar" <Dietmar.Gaertner@softwareag.com>
- Cc: "'www-ws-desc@w3.org'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
FYI - the current thinking in WS-I.org is to support doc/literal and rpc/literal, so yes rpc/literal makes sense. IMHO, SOAP encoding has caused a lot of interop headaches. Life would be simpler if literal was all we needed to support. Arthur Ryman |---------+---------------------------------> | | "Gaertner, Dietmar" | | | <Dietmar.Gaertner@soft| | | wareag.com> | | | Sent by: | | | www-ws-desc-request@w3| | | .org | | | | | | | | | 09/05/2002 01:50 PM | | | | |---------+---------------------------------> >-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: "'www-ws-desc@w3.org'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org> | | cc: | | Subject: New issue: Can the "use" attribute be eliminated? | | | | | >-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| 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 15:29:23 UTC