logo       

RE: Draft agenda: 24 June TAG teleconference (Arch document, WSA update): msg#00155

org.w3c.tag

Subject: RE: Draft agenda: 24 June TAG teleconference (Arch document, WSA update)


David Orchard writes:

>> I think you misunderstood my points.

Very possible, and if so I certainly apologize. My note had a very simple
point, which I think I stand behind: the sentence I quoted from you said
(or seemed to me to say) in so many words that SOAP 1.2 had suggested a
particular existing HTTP binding in WSDL. It doesn't. My intent was only
to eliminate any confusion on that point of fact. Having skimmed the
Tag's minutes, I am more or less comfortable with the direction, which I
take to be: "make sure the WSDL and WSA groups are aware that there are
potentially issues requiring attention in this area."

>> Not even a hint of a suggestion that XMLP
>> should do more work.

Much appreciated :-)

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------







"David Orchard" <dorchard@xxxxxxx>
06/24/2002 06:40 PM


To: <noah_mendelsohn@xxxxxxxxxx>
cc: <www-tag@xxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Draft agenda: 24 June TAG teleconference (Arch
document, WSA update)


Noah,

I think you misunderstood my points. The discussion is around what WSD
should do, now that SOAP 1.2 has GET support. Not even a hint of a
suggestion that XMLP should do more work.

Maybe it's simply a matter of the TAG asking WSD to do a bit of work in
this
area. At any rate, I think it's always useful for the TAG to have
discussions about web service architecture.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: noah_mendelsohn@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 12:39 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: www-tag@xxxxxx
> Subject: RE: Draft agenda: 24 June TAG teleconference (Arch document,
> WSA update)
>
>
> I am not a super-expert in WSDL, and in any case don't have
> time to figure
> out all the specifics of David's concern. One clarification
> does seem to
> be in order though:
>
> David Orchard writes:
>
> > The WSDL 1.1 GET binding with query parameters -
> > the type suggested by the SOAP 1.2 specification
> > for GET - does not provide any mechanism for
> > expressing the syntactice schema of the types
> > expressed in the GET query.
>
> I'm not sure where you get the impression that any particular WSDL
> mechanism is "suggested" by SOAP 1.2. The new versions of
> the SOAP drafts
> say [1]:
>
> "Note:
>
> Conventions for specific URI encodings of
> procedure names and arguments, as well as
> for controlling the inclusion of such
> arguments in the SOAP RPC body could
> be established in conjunction with the
> development of Web Service interface
> description languages, could be developed
> when SOAP is bound to particular
> programming languages, or could be
> established on an application or
> procedure-specific basis.'
>
> There is no reference to any particular Web Services
> interface language,
> and certainly not to any particular "binding" that happens to
> be available
> in today's versions of WSDL. The note above is a signal to
> groups such as
> the WSDL working group that they may wish to consider development of
> bindings from (the resource identifying aspects of) RPC interface
> descriptions into various URL schemes. In fact, there is (as
> far as I can
> tell) no normative reference from the SOAP drafts to WSDL at
> all. There
> is certainly no presumption that some existing WSDL HTTP
> binding would be
> the one to use (though you certainly can if it meets your needs.)
>
> So, I have some concern that you may be raising to the Tag
> concerns which
> are based on at least a partial misunderstanding of what the
> Protocols WG
> has agreed to. Thank you.
>
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part2.html#RPCW
ebArguments


------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------









<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Google Custom Search

News | FAQ | advertise