Re: Use of mime:mimeXml in WSDL 1.1 MIME bindings.

Anish,

I think you're right about the difference. But it's not syntactic sugar 
afterall. 

<mime:content type="text/xml"/> is for the case where the schema is not 
known. I suppose the message part would be defined as xsd:string instead 
of an element. 

On the other hand <mime:mimeXML> is for the case where the message part is 
an element. It think both cases are need. As I mentioned, we do use 
mimeXml for DB2 (in addition to SOAP bindings of course).

Arthur Ryman,
WebSphere Studio Development Lead,
Web Services, XML and Data Tools

phone: 905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: 905-413-2323, TL 969-2323
fax: 905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
intranet: http://w3.torolab.ibm.com/~ryman/




Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
04/01/2003 10:04 PM
Please respond to Anish.Karmarkar

 
        To:     Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
        cc:     Dirk Wollscheid/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS, www-ws-desc@w3.org, 
www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
        Subject:        Re: Use of mime:mimeXml in WSDL 1.1 MIME bindings.

 


Arthur,

The part that confuses me is that section 5.3 in [1] says:

"If the return format is XML, but the schema is not known ahead of time, 
the generic mime element can be used indicating text/xml:

<mime:content type="text/xml"/>
"

and 5.6 says:

"To specify XML payloads that are not SOAP compliant (do not have a SOAP
Envelope), but do have a particular schema, the mime:mimeXml element may
be used to specify that concrete schema."

So 5.3 says that when mime:content (for text/xml) is used there is no
associated schema. This isn't true, since there will be a schema
associated with the part that is being bound to the particular
mime:part.

Whereas, 5.6 says that the payload cannot be a SOAP envelope. What
happens if the schema says that it is a SOAP envelope (which is indeed
posible since SOAP envelope is XML with an associated schema :) ).
Ofcourse such an Envelope will not be the root part and will be "payload".

I am not sure if the authors of WSDL 1.1 saw the two
(<mime:content type="text/xml"> and <mime:mimeXml>) as different. But,
it seems to me that mime:mimeXml is syntactic sugar for
<mime:content type="text/xml">.

Given that mime:content is used for types other than text/xml, WS-I will
have to fix/address the "bug" in section 5.3. It was not clear to me
that there was any value in fixing the "bug" in 5.6 (the assumption that
I had made was that mime:mimeXml was not being used by anyone - which
as your email indicates is not true).

-Anish
--


Arthur Ryman wrote:
> 
> Anish,
> 
> DB2 Web Services uses it. See 
> http://www7b.software.ibm.com/dmdd/zones/webservices/worf/
> 
> Why do you think this is confusing since it is simply syntactic sugar?
> 
> Arthur Ryman
> 
> 
>                *Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>*
> Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
> 
> 04/01/2003 12:59 PM
> Please respond to Anish.Karmarkar
> 
> 
>         To:        www-ws-desc@w3.org
>         cc: 
>         Subject:        Use of mime:mimeXml in WSDL 1.1 MIME bindings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> The Basic Profile Working Group in Web Services Interoperability
> Organization (WS-I) [1] is looking at the MIME bindings from WSDL 1.1.
> 
> There is a proposal within the WG to get rid of mime:mimeXml as it is
> thought to be potentially confusing, would simplify things and is
> syntactic sugar for -
> 
> <mime:content type="text/xml" ... />
> 
> This email is to solicit input from implementers, as to, whether there
> are any implementations that implement mime:mimeXml and/or find it
> useful.
> 
> Thanks and regards.
> 
> -Anish
> Oracle Corp.
> --
> 
> [1] http://www.ws-i.org
> [2] http://www.w3.org/tr/wsdl#_Toc492291084
> 
> 
>