W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > May 2006

RE: WSDL 2.0 Component Model Interchange Format - HTTP Error Code Format

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 09:16:25 -0700
Message-ID: <37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E802BCD17B@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
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>
Style uri appears missing from


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


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
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
Maybe something like:
<element name="soapBindingProperties">
    <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" />
Received on Monday, 29 May 2006 16:16:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:58 UTC