RE: encodingStyle

XML Schema describes Infosets rather than serializations. So I would
argue one could use the same schema to describe an XML 1.0 and an MTOM
serialization of a message.

Gudge 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of paul.downey@bt.com
> Sent: 08 January 2004 17:54
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: encodingStyle
> 
> 
> As I now understand it, in WSDL 2.0 the schema employed to 
> describe the data being exchanged will also describe the 
> actual serialisation of the data 'on the wire'.
> 
> Doesn't this remove the ability for the same infoset to be 
> exchanged using different serialisations:  XML text, MTOM, or 
> whatever and necessitate a new schema /language/ just to 
> support a different message encoding ? 
> 
> It seems to me that there was real benefit in encodingStyle: 
> multiple bindings could easily present the same data but 
> exchanged over different transports *and* serialisations.
> 
> Thanks for your patience and sorry if i'm going over well 
> trodden ground here!
> 
> Paul
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of paul.downey@bt.com
> Sent: 19 December 2003 11:18
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: encodingStyle
> 
> 
> 
> Following the call yesterday, i'm confused why we would need 
> to invent a new schema language just to represent section 5 
> encoded messages when it's just a flag ATM. 
> 
> I'm also puzzled how other, non-XML serialisations for SOAP 
> could be supported in the future - i'm guessing you'd need to 
> invent a whole new SOAP binding ?
> 
> Can someone please point me at the reasoning how we lost the 
> encodingStyle on the SOAP binding ?
> 
> Paul
> 
> --
> Paul Sumner Downey
> Web Services Integration
> BT Exact
> +44(0)1442 296260
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 8 January 2004 12:57:57 UTC