W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > December 2003

proposing closing issues 26, 3, 14, 23, 32, 65, 69

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:50:26 +0100
To: WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1070545826.1963.87.camel@localhost>

Hi all,

issue 26 [issues list at http://tinyurl.com/mwuy] wants us to replace
transmission primitives by MEPs. I believe the publication of part 2
resolves this issue. I therefore propose we close it.

Issue 3 basically asks us how arrays (a SOAP Data Model term) are
declared in XML Schema. We don't deal with SOAP Encoding (nor the Data
Model) at the moment so I suggest we close this issue. I think until we
tackle SOAP Data Model fully (if ever), we shouldn't try to do bits of

Issue 14 asks us to support SOAP 1.2 features. I believe the support is
there in the published WD in the form of features & properties.
Therefore I suggest we close issue 14.

Issue 23 is generally about full support for SOAP 1.2, and specifically
it mentions many aspects of the SOAP 1.2 Recommendation. I suggest that
we split this issue into separate issues on support for the Data Model
and Encoding (one), RPC (two), transport binding framework (three).
Features are already covered by issue 14. After such split, we can close
issue 23.

Issue 32 asks whether we're going to support SOAP 1.1 in particular and
individual versions of SOAP and other protocols in general. I suggest we
close it saying we won't support SOAP 1.1 because we don't see the need
for further parallel deployment of both versions of SOAP, and for the
general question we can say that issues should be raised for other
bindings (than SOAP) if necessary.

Issue 65 deals with a SOAP/FTP binding. I'd close it by saying that we
don't plan to provide such a binding in WSDL 2, that such a binding can
be created independently of this WG, and that SOAP 1.2 FTP binding would
have to be created along with the WSDL SOAP/FTP binding parts, as
suggested by the originator of the issue.

Issue 69 (wrongly titled) deals with the optionality of SOAP headers. I
suggest we close the issue by pointing to our resolution to remove the
direct soap:headers attribute way of specifying SOAP headers. Features
can handle optionality of headers as appropriate.

If there's any discussion, please modify the subject line as necessary.

Enjoy the flooding, 8-)

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Systinet Corporation
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2003 08:50:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:36 UTC