should WSDL be used to describe existing HTTP resources?

something which threw me on last week's call was the assertion that
the WSDL HTTP binding wouldn't be used to describe existing HTTP 
resources, only resources designed with being presented in WSDL in
mind.

This is why we don't need to describe more than one HTTP fault being
routed to a single interface fault and the contents of a HTTP fault 
message will be likely to be able to be mapped onto an element defined 
in schema.

I'm happy to work with the WG consensus here, but would appreciate if 
someone could roughly point me to the discussion where this consensus 
was reached.

TIA
Paul



------------
[from this weeks minutes:

8.  Issue 166: Binding of Faults in HTTP Binding [.1]
  - Hugo's proposal [.2]
  - Paul's fault proposal [.3] Hugo's response [.4]

Paul: recap the issue 
Hugo:  Paul wants to specify more than one error code for a fault.  It
makes sense to me to specify only one error code.
Sanjiva: Paul is trying to map http fault to WSDL fault. it should be
the other way around

more discussions among Sanjiva, Paul, Hugo and Jonathan. Sanjiva and
Hugo suggest going with a modified version of Paul's proposal for ONE
http code

Jonathan: sounds we are in agreement, but still confused. need a write
up of a full proposal?

Hugo, Sanjiva: feel comfortable with Paul's proposal if it's modified
for one code
Paul: ok with one code

RESOLUTION: Close 166 with adopting Paul's proposal with ONE code

ACTION: editors to incorporate Paul's proposal with ONE http code

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x166
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/0032.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0086.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Jun/0002.html

Received on Monday, 7 June 2004 06:18:26 UTC