- From: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
- Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 12:23:24 -0500
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- CC: XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> If you and other people come to one of the groups and say you need SOAP > 1.2 Encoding supported directly in WSDL 1.2 because you actually need > SOAP Encoding, the groups would probably work on the schema language. I > don't think this is an issue of resources because I'd happily volunteer > to do an initial proposal, as I believe I've said before. Defining a new schema language, to say nothing of hoping for widespread support for it within existing WSDL tools, is a fool's errand. No thanks. > The alternative to inventing a SOAP Data Model Schema Language was to > specify precisely how XML Schema works with use="encoded", which I > believe would have been much more work to get right and sort out all the > corner cases. I disagree. An alternative would be to leave "use=encoded" and require that the encdoingStyle URI be defined by the XMLP WG. This makes sense: if you are using an encoding style to "modify" the schema, then the obligation is on the modifier, not the WSDL group, to define that modification. (Note that there is no requirement that the "modification" be described in XML, although the idea of using an XSLT script to transform an XML Schema so that the SOAP RPC attributes are natively supported is kind of interesting...) > So, voice your needs! This has two answers. The first is that I am fortunate to have a public forum in which to express some views, and have done so a couple of times: 1. http://www.xml.com/pub/a/ws/2002/11/20/ends.html 2. http://www.xml.com/pub/a/ws/2003/03/04/endpoints.html Perhaps I flatter myself too much to think that WSDL and XMLP folks read them. The second can be found just below. > Many (including myself) seem to share the > understanding that people are shying away from SOAP Encoding. This may > be because XML is just sufficient, or it may be because SOAP Encoding > doesn't play nicely with XML Schema and there are no alternatives as > yet. Developers are being forced away from SOAP RPC because vendors are killing it off. (I just looked at the XMLP and WSDL WG membereships to confirm, and they are clearly dominated by ISV's who develop SOAP/WSDL products, rather than developers who use such products.) I won't comment on motivations, but I suspect that looking through the mailing lists at the time that XMLP decided to split SOAP encoding off into a separate document might be informative. At any rate, it was clear to me that once that was done, the writing was on the wall. The only surprise is how quickly it's happened. > Hope we don't end up with any hard feelings, On a personal level? Certainly not. /r$
Received on Friday, 7 March 2003 12:23:31 UTC