RE: Action item: HTTP binding for accepts header and output Serialization.

huh.  If the expected media type uses spaces as separators, then this is
a different string than the HTTP accept header.  And thus the media type
cannot be used to create the accept header.  Voila, problem about
relating the two of them is solved, as there is some application
specific relationship.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hugo Haas [mailto:hugo@w3.org]
> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 3:39 AM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: Web Services Description
> Subject: Re: Action item: HTTP binding for accepts header and output
> Serialization.
> 
> 
> Hi Dave.
> 
> * David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com> [2004-06-23 17:54-0700]
> > This serialization format is designed to allow a Web 
> service to send or receive binary data.  The instance data of 
> the input or output is serialized according to the media type 
> of the instance data.  The media type that is expected or 
> allowed on input, and the media type that may or will be sent 
> on output is specified according to the Assigning Media types 
> to binary data in XML.  The sender may specify an HTTP Accept 
> header using the Abstract Data feature.  The Accept header 
> value should be within the set of values defined by the 
> expected Media Type element value.
> 
> As per your first two questions:
> > - I don't know how to relate the AD/data to the contentType 
> explicitly because the expectedMediatype is buried in the 
> Annotation. I think the relationship between companyPicture 
> expectedMediaType and the AD myDataType is a bit tenous.  
> > - Can the outputSerialization be a reference rather than a value?
> 
> We could maybe define this feature so that it just sets the
> serializations based on the expectedMediaType value.
> 
> However, I am not sure how this feature would work with the input
> using GET and foo:myDataType in your example, though I have to admit I
> don't get what the current one does in this case either.
> 
> [..]
> > Example requesting an image/gif
> 
> As a purely editorial change, as people tend to use examples without
> changing them much if at all, I would much prefer to see image/png
> used rather than image/gif.
> 
> > The following is a WSDL service that returns an image/gif 
> or image/jpeg and allows the client to choose which to receive.
> > 
> > <definition>
> > 
> > <xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
> >            xmlns:tns="http://example.com/thisexample"
> >            xmlns:xmlmime="http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/xmlmime"
> >            targetNamespace="http://example.com/thisexample">
> > 
> > <xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/xmlmime"
> >     schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/xmlmime"/>
> > 
> > 
> > <xs:complexType name="Picture">
> >    <xs:simpleContent>
> >        <xs:extension base="xs:base64Binary" >
> >            <xs:attribute ref="xmlmime:contentType" use="optional" />
> >        </xs:extension>
> >    </xs:simpleContent>
> > </xs:complexType>
> > 
> > <xs:element name="companyPicture" type="tns:Picture" 
> >     <xs:annotation>
> >         <xs:documentation>This element designates the range 
> of values 
> >         that the declared binary type will accept 
> >         </xs:documentation>
> >         <xs:appInfo>
> >            <xmlmime:expectedMediaType>image/jpeg, 
> image/gif</xmlmime:expectedMediaType>
> 
> According to the schema definition of expectedMediaType[1], I think
> that it should be (making my image/png change too):
> 
>   <xmlmime:expectedMediaType>image/jpeg 
> image/png</xmlmime:expectedMediaType>
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Hugo
> 
>   1. http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-media-types/#appendix
> -- 
> Hugo Haas - W3C
> mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
>

Received on Thursday, 24 June 2004 07:00:01 UTC