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

***********************
Warning: Your file, cm-canonresults4.zip, contains more than 32 files after decompression and cannot be scanned.
***********************


Youenn,

Yes, I refined the schema to convey as much structure as possible to make
it easier for tools that process the interchange format.

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



Youenn Fablet <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
05/30/2006 05:20 AM

To
Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
cc
Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, Jean-Jacques Moreau
<jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, Tony Rogers <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>,
www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject
Re: WSDL 2.0 Component Model Interchange Format - HTTP Error Code  Format






***********************
Warning: Your file, cm-canonresults4.zip, contains more than 32 files
after decompression and cannot be scanned.
***********************



Jonathan Marsh wrote:
>
> Style uri appears missing from

>
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/test-suite/results/Canon/GreatH-3G/primer-hotelReservationService-results.xml


> <
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/test-suite/results/Canon/GreatH-3G/primer-hotelReservationService-results.xml
>
>
I finally caught the bug. I misread the interchange schema and was

generating a sequence of style elements, while I should have generated a

single style element with a sequence of uri elements in it.
Interestingly, it seems the canonicalization stylesheet is removing the

style element text node that was present in the non-canonical

interchange dump.
Please find in attachment some new results with safety and style bugs

hopefully fixed. I also added the subFaultCodes element even if no sub

code is given.
>
> 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.
>
Yes, that is how I interpret it. The wrapper element would mimic nicely

this behaviour.
There might be a similar issue with the required http properties brought

by the soap binding.
The cookies property for instance is required if the http binding is

engaged.
Its requiredness in the case of a soap over http binding is not clear to

me when reading the specification (beginning of section 5).
>
> 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!
>
Agreed.
I thought the confusion was due to the interchange format itself which

except from its schema has no real documentation.
That is why the more knowledge we put in the schema, the less confusion

we will have at the interchange level.
The specification itself is clear to me with that respect but I may be

biaised and if there is a way to improve it further, I am all for it.

Youenn