- From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.at>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:57:06 +0200
- To: WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Hi, I just sent in my comments on the XMLP LC specs to the XMLP WG, see [1-6]. Most of them were editorial or not pertaining to WS-Description. Here's what we should probably discuss in WS-Desc WG and possibly generate a formal comment from our group to XMLP. 1) the Resource Representation header [7] is not a SOAP module and therefore does not have a formal name by which it can be referred (other than the element qname). Is the qname sufficient for us or would we like a URI to be able to refer that particular piece of functionality from WSDL? 2) Section 4.3.1 in MTOM [8] contains an editor's note that we could have something to say on (I personally don't): >>The binding framework of the SOAP recommendation provides that "the minimum responsibility of a binding in transmitting a message is to specify the means by which the SOAP message Infoset is transferred to and reconstituted by the binding at the receiving SOAP node and to specify the manner in which the transmission of the envelope is effected using the facilities of the underlying protocol." (see [SOAP Part 1] 4.2 Binding Framework). Although illegal as input to XOP encoding, elements named xop:Include are legal in SOAP Infosets, and may indeed be useful in certain circumstances (perhaps in sending an error report on or otherwise quoting a fragment of a XOP Infoset). During preparation of this MTOM specification some commentators noted that the second option provided above (i.e., to generate an error) sets the potentially unfortunate precedent of allowing particular bindings to decline to send otherwise legal SOAP messages. Accordingly, the option to generate a binding-dependent fault is included in this draft provisionally, and the XML Protocols Workgroup solicits feedback on the advisability of retaining this option in the final Recommendation.<< Do we like the idea that a SOAP binding can reject some Envelope infosets? Do we dislike it? Neither? I believe these two to be the only potential issues for consideration in WS-Description WG. Best regards, Jacek Kopecky Ph.D. researcher Digital Enterprise Research Institute http://www.deri.at/ [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2004Jun/0012.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2004Jun/0013.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2004Jun/0014.html [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2004Jun/0015.html [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2004Jun/0016.html [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2004Jun/0017.html [7] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-soap12-rep-20040608/ [8] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-soap12-mtom-20040608/#httpof-sending
Received on Friday, 18 June 2004 13:12:10 UTC