RE: Media types handling in WSDL 1.2

The WSDesc WG discussed this item at our telcon, and confirmed that we
do expect to support MTOM in WSDL 2.0.  We adopted a requirement that
says (essentially) that the description language MUST be able to
describe messages using the MTOM attachments mechanism, if the MTOM work
is completed in time for inclusion in WSDL 2.0.

We look forward to working with you on this.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Hadley [mailto:Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 12:20 PM
> To: Jonathan Marsh; Philippe Le Hegaret
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Media types handling in WSDL 1.2
> 
> Jonathan, Philippe,
> 
> You didn't respond to my previous note below. I've been asked by the
> XMLP WG to try once more to obtain an answer. If you don't respond
> within a week we'll assume your silence means that you do not intend
to
> tackle the description side of MTOM in the WSD WG.
> 
> Regards,
> Marc.
> 
> On Wednesday, Oct 8, 2003, at 16:37 US/Eastern, Marc Hadley wrote:
> 
> >
> > Jonathan, Philippe,
> >
> > I have an action from the XMLP WG to follow up on the recent
> > discussions regarding WSD support for attachments. Are you able to
> > confirm that the WSD WG is going to tackle the description side of
the
> > MTOM (nee PASWA) work currently underway in the XMLP WG ?
> >
> > Thanks for any information.
> > Marc.
> >
> >
> > On Friday, Sep 26, 2003, at 11:21 US/Eastern, Marc Hadley wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003, at 14:33 US/Eastern, Philippe Le
Hegaret
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 2003-09-17 at 13:57, Marc Hadley wrote:
> >>>> Does the involvement of the ws-desc WG mean that the XMLP WG can
> >>>> skip
> >>>> working on the description oriented parts of PASWA ?
> >>>
> >>> I certainly don't want to do the work on the XMLP WG :)
> >>
> >> And similarly I don't want to do the work of the ws-desc WG ;-).
> >>
> >>> The reality is: the technical decisions of the WSD WG for
embedding
> >>> media types in XML Schema will impact on the work done in the XMLP
> >>> WG.
> >>> Since the reverse is true, both WGs need to be aware of their work
> >>> and
> >>> make sure we coordinate on it and reach the same conclusions.
> >>>
> >> I agree and +1 Mark's comment[1] that I think we need a cross WG
task
> >> force of some kind.
> >>
> >> Marc.
> >>
> >> [1]
http://www.w3.org/mid/09D54A43-E944-11D7-9930-00039396E15A@bea.com
> >>
> >> --
> >> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
> >> Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
> >>
> >>
> > --
> > Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
> > Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
> >
> >
> --
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
> Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
>

Received on Thursday, 23 October 2003 14:58:35 UTC