- From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 10:38:57 -0500
- To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "XMLP Public" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
- Cc: "WSD Public" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Hi Jean-Jacques, Given that WSDL may be used with more than just SOAP bindings, IMHO it should be possible to describe in WSDL the existence of header blocks (i.e., contextual information) independent of SOAP. When the contextual item is bound to a SOAP header block, however, I would be ok with requiring that to indicate a SOAP module URI. However, as others have pointed out, this doesn't prevent a SOAP headerblock which doesn't have a module URI popping up. We can however do it right at a WSDL level. Sanjiva. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr> To: "Dear XMLP Comments" <xmlp-comments@w3.org>; "XMLP Public" <xml-dist-app@w3.org> Cc: "WSD Public" <www-ws-desc@w3.org> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 3:46 AM Subject: Possible new LC issue: Can SOAP header blocks exist outside SOAP modules? > > Dear all, > > An interesting question/issue has come up during yesterday's WSD > face-to-face: can SOAP 1.2 header blocks exist independently from > SOAP 1.2 modules? I.e. can you define a new header block without > writing down on paper the corresponding module specification > *and* without assigning a new module URI? > > I think the spec is at best unclear on this topic. Beyond > clarification, the real question is: as a WG, how do we feel > about this issue? Since we have taken all the trouble of > describing modules in a normative fashion, probably for a good > reason, do we still want allow "independent" header blocks, or do > we think they should be discouraged? > > I am cc'eing ws-desc since the WSD WG is interested in this > topic, as part of its work of describing SOAP features in WSDL > 1.2. However, I am not raising this issue on behalf of the WSD WG > (although the WSD might raise this issue itself in the future). > > Please remove xmlp-comments from any further discussion. > > Cheers, > > Jean-Jacques. >
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 10:41:15 UTC