- From: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2006 11:28:10 -0400
- To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF66617A4E.8F818B7D-ON85257195.00547569-85257195.005506AB@ca.ibm.com>
Jonathan, I was translating the following spec text into the schema: {http cookies} REQUIRED. A xs:boolean to the Binding component. My interprettation is that when the when SOAP extension is present, the {http cookies} property is required, but of course this only makes sense for SOAP over HTTP. I agree the spec should be clarified. Arthur Ryman, IBM Software Group, Rational Division blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/ phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077 assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411 fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920 mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com> Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 06/20/2006 09:14 AM To <www-ws-desc@w3.org> cc Subject {http cookies} REQUIRED? I noticed from Arthur?s updates to the interchange format that BindingOperation.{http cookies} is required when the SOAP binding is engaged. The text before that makes it sound optional (e.g. ?may?, ?allowed?.) I think Arthur?s reading is probably most nearly literally correct, but if so, the ?may? and ?allowed? might need to be strengthened a little. But I wonder if this reading is really what we intended. The bigger question is, whether support for the defined subset of {http *} properties are required by all implementations of the SOAP binding or whether the whttp:* attributes are an ?optional extension? of the SOAP binding. The latter seems a bit strange, as we don?t seem to require implementations to support a {soap underlying protocol} value of ?http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/bindings/HTTP/?, yet everyone is required populate the {http cookies} property, which is called out as specifically only having meaning when used with ?http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/bindings/HTTP/?. Not sure what the right solution is, but it seems like we should at least make the {http *} properties optional in the component model unless the right {soap underlying protocol} is in use. More difficult but possibly better would be to figure out how to treat this ?nested? extension the same as the top-level ones. [ Jonathan Marsh ][ jmarsh@microsoft.com ][ http://auburnmarshes.spaces.msn.com ]
Received on Thursday, 22 June 2006 15:28:26 UTC