- From: Youenn Fablet <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 16:11:25 +0200
- To: Arthur Ryman <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Reviewing the interchange schemas for the wsdl extensions (rpc, soap...), I have some small comments: 1) why not having a wrapper element for soap/http extension components? This would allow to enforce some more constraints in the schema (like the fact that the soap version is a required property of the binding component). 2) In the soap cm schema, the type CodesType is a serie of 0 or more elements. The style generally used for the other interchange schemas is to have the wrapper element optional and the serie to be of 1 or more elements. It seems also that there is a lot of optionality with soap subcodes: soapFaultCode is optional and contains an optional subcodes elements that contains an optional list of code elements. Why not removing one of the element like the subcodes one ? Am I misunderstanding things here ? 3) the parent element is defined in several namespaces (at least the cm and soap namespaces). For instance the parent element of a soap module is in the soap namespace while the parent element of an operation component is in the cm namespace. It may be clearer to have them in the same namespace since they share the same semantics. Two small notes concerning the comparison framework: - Is it planned to add automatic ordering of the soap subcodes, soap modules and http/soap headers ? - It seems feasible, at least with safety and rpc, to filter out these elements (on a namespace-based level) if an implementation declares that it does not support one of these features. This would allow to compare implementations with the canonical documents even if they do not fully implement all wsdl extensions. For the http/soap extensions, I am not sure of the right way to do that filtering, but it would also be nice to be able to check implementations supporting the soap binding only against wsdl documents that contain both soap and http binding (like the sparql document). Regards, Youenn Arthur Ryman wrote: > > I modifed the schema for outputing the HTTP error code to be > consistent with the SOAP fault code change. > > Woden is about to complete support for the HTTP binding extension, at > which time, I'll update the Woden test results. > > 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
Received on Monday, 22 May 2006 14:11:37 UTC