- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 09:16:25 -0700
- To: "Youenn Fablet" <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: "Arthur Ryman" <ryman@ca.ibm.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Tony Rogers" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E802BCD17B@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Style uri appears missing from http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/test-suite/results/Cano n/GreatH-3G/primer-hotelReservationService-results.xml As I read the spec the (for instance) {soap version} property is required. Since the SOAP binding itself is clearly optional, the cmsoap:soapVersion element needs ultimately to be optional. It MUST be present when wsdl:binding type="http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/wsdl/soap" is present. I suppose a wrapper element might help a little, but all it does is make a component model error surface as a validation error. But it's still an error! ________________________________ From: Youenn Fablet [mailto:youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr] Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 8:53 AM To: Jonathan Marsh Cc: Arthur Ryman; Jean-Jacques Moreau; Tony Rogers; www-ws-desc@w3.org Subject: Re: WSDL 2.0 Component Model Interchange Format - HTTP Error Code Format Jonathan Marsh wrote: Done. Results look great! Cool 8-) !! I used your sparql results as the baseline since they appear to be much closer than the other implementations. Otherwise the "failures" seem mostly like nits. You seem to be emitting a safety="false" when the I just checked and fixed the code for the safety dump :-) wsdl says safety="true". You also seem to be missing a style <uri>. I also checked for the style attribute but did not find any issue with my dump code. I need to investigate a bit more this issue. Could you tell me which is/are the WSDL document(s) that highlight(s) this bug ? You, Woden, and I all seem to disagree in the GreatH cases precisely which soap binding properties are required to appear - I think we've got issues open on this topic. One (partial ?) solution may be to rewrite the soap and http schemas to have a single http and single soap interchange extension point for each component. The schema of these wrapper elements will clearly identify which elements are optional (and should be omitted whenever possible) and which elements are mandatory. Today, this is not quite clear as all interchange extensions are optional. Maybe something like: <element name="soapBindingProperties"> <complexType><sequence> <xs:element ref="cmsoap:soapMepDefault" minOccurs="0" /> <xs:element ref="cmsoap:soapModules" minOccurs="0" /> <xs:element ref="cmsoap:soapUnderlyingProtocol" minOccurs="1" /> <xs:element ref="cmsoap:soapVersion" minOccurs="1" /> </sequence></complexType> </element>
Received on Monday, 29 May 2006 16:16:43 UTC