- From: Tim Ewald <tewald@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 12:56:26 -0700
- To: <ryman@ca.ibm.com>, "Gaertner, Dietmar" <Dietmar.Gaertner@softwareag.com>
- Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, <www-ws-desc-request@w3.org>
+1. > -----Original Message----- > From: ryman@ca.ibm.com [mailto:ryman@ca.ibm.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 3:29 PM > To: Gaertner, Dietmar > Cc: 'www-ws-desc@w3.org'; www-ws-desc-request@w3.org > Subject: Re: New issue: Can the "use" attribute be eliminated? > > > > 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-is sues.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 15:56:33 UTC