Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [soapbuilders] Dealing with SOAP 1.2 before WSDL 1.2 comes out

Expand Messages
  • Jacek Kopecky
    Rich, I m writing the schema language proposal now. Here s an example of how a WSDL would look now for a more complex scenario than echoString (where e.g.
    Message 1 of 21 , May 26, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Rich,

      I'm writing the schema language proposal now. Here's an example of how a
      WSDL would look now for a more complex scenario than echoString (where
      e.g. multirefs would never occur):

      <wsdl:definitions targetNamespace="urn:foo"
      xmlns:sdms="http://example.org/soap/data-model/schema"
      xmlns:foo="urn:foo"
      xmlns:bar="urn:bar">
      <wsdl:types>
      <sdms:schema targetNamespace="urn:bar">
      <sdms:element name="Patients">
      <sdms:array type="bar:Patient" dimensions="1"/>
      </sdms:element>

      <sdms:struct name="Patient">
      <sdms:element name="Name" type="xs:string">
      <sdms:element name="Address" type="xs:string" nillable="true"> <!-- for simplicity -->
      </sdms:struct>
      </sdms:schema>
      </wsdl:types>

      <wsdl:message name="ExampleInputMsg">
      <wsdl:part name="patients" sdms:element="bar:Patients"/>
      </wsdl:message>

      <wsdl:message name="ExampleOutputMsg"/>

      <wsdl:interface name="PatientsProcessingInterface"> <!-- note new wsdl1.2 naming -->
      <wsdl:operation name="processPatients">
      <wsdl:input name="processPatientsInput" message="foo:ExampleInputMsg"/>
      <wsdl:output name="processPatientsOutput" message="foo:ExampleOutputMsg"/>
      </wsdl:operation>
      </wsdl:interface>

      <wsdl:binding name="PatientsProcessingSOAPBinding" interface="foo:PatientsProcessingInterface>
      <soap:binding encodingStyleDefault="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-encoding">
      </wsdl:binding>
      </wsdl:definitions>

      To explain in detail:

      On message parts, instead of using element="XMLSchemaElementQName" we
      use sdms:element="SDMSchemaElementQName" to refer to elements defined
      using SOAP Data Model schema. The schema then literally describes the
      data that will be passed around (allowing multirefs etc.)

      In SOAP binding, we use the encodingStyle
      http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-encoding to indicate that the data is
      encoded using SOAP Encoding (one of the possible encoding of SOAP Data
      Model graph data).

      Does this work for you?

      Mind you, it is quite probable that WSDL 1.2 changes will radically
      affect the form of the example, but I don't expect the spirit of it to
      be affected.

      Best regards,

      Jacek Kopecky

      Senior Architect
      Systinet Corporation
      http://www.systinet.com/






      On Fri, 2003-05-23 at 20:14, Rich Salz wrote:
      > Tom Jordahl wrote:
      > > No, it's not true.
      >
      > Geez, this is starting to sounds like the Monty Python skit. Why is it
      > so hard to make it clear? I've heard two different answers from five
      > different WG members.
      >
      > Let's try a concrete example.
      > <operation name="echoString">
      > <soap:operation soapAction="http://soapinterop.org/"/>
      >
      > <input>
      > <soap:body use="encoded"
      > namespace="http://soapinterop.org/"
      >
      > encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/"/>
      > </input>
      > <output>
      > <soap:body use="encoded"
      > namespace="http://soapinterop.org/"
      > encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/"/>
      > </output>
      > </operation>
      >
      > How do I write that in WSDL 1.2 to get a message sent using the SOAP 1.2
      > encoding as described in Part 2: Adjuncts of the SOAP spec?
    • Rich Salz
      Looks technically nice. But will anyone care, sicne they can instead plead with their vendor to support the encodingStyle attribute? (If Pete Hendry s note is
      Message 2 of 21 , May 26, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Looks technically nice.

        But will anyone care, sicne they can instead plead with their vendor
        to support the encodingStyle attribute? (If Pete Hendry's note is
        right, and nobody posts a "correction" in the next day or two.)

        Or should it perhaps be based on another schema language, such as
        DCE/DCOM, Corba, ASN1, Relax?
        /r$
        --
        Rich Salz Chief Security Architect
        DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com
        XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
      • Christopher K. St. John
        ... Isn t that the WSDL 1.2 representation of a SOAP 1.1 encoded operation? The encodingStyle should presumably be http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-encoding
        Message 3 of 21 , May 26, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Pete Hendry wrote:
          > ... This seems
          > to have been assumed to mean soap-encoding can't be used any more but
          > this is not the case at all. What can and can't be used has not changed
          > at all, just how it is described in the operation.
          >
          > The WSDL1.2 version is I believe
          >
          > <operation name="echoString">
          > <soap:operation soapAction="http://soapinterop.org/"/>
          > <input>
          > <soap:body
          > namespace="http://soapinterop.org/"
          > encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/"/>
          > ...
          >

          Isn't that the WSDL 1.2 representation of a SOAP 1.1
          encoded operation? The encodingStyle should presumably
          be "http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-encoding"

          That makes a difference.

          Try to write out the _entire_ WSDL 1.2 representation
          (including the types section) of a service that uses
          the SOAP 1.2 encoding and that echos a multidimensional
          array.

          I bet you can't do it without (a) re-using some bits
          off the old SOAP 1.1 encoding schema or (b) using a
          whole new schema language ala Jacek Kopecky's proposal.
          No fair echoing a string, it has to be a multidim
          array.


          -chris
        • Pete Hendry
          It is written exactly the same but without the use attribute. The fact the encodingStyle attribute is present implies the old use= encoded . The use
          Message 4 of 21 , May 27, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            It is written exactly the same but without the use attribute. The fact
            the encodingStyle attribute is present implies the old "use='encoded'".
            The use attribute actually has no useful purpose. This is what I think
            the reasoning behind the decision to remove it comes down to. This seems
            to have been assumed to mean soap-encoding can't be used any more but
            this is not the case at all. What can and can't be used has not changed
            at all, just how it is described in the operation.

            The WSDL1.2 version is I believe

            <operation name="echoString">
            <soap:operation soapAction="http://soapinterop.org/"/>
            <input>
            <soap:body
            namespace="http://soapinterop.org/"
            encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/"/>
            </input>
            <output>
            <soap:body
            namespace="http://soapinterop.org/"
            encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/"/>
            </output>
            </operation>

            Pete

            Rich Salz wrote:

            >Tom Jordahl wrote:
            >
            >
            >>No, it's not true.
            >>
            >>
            >
            >Geez, this is starting to sounds like the Monty Python skit. Why is it
            >so hard to make it clear? I've heard two different answers from five
            >different WG members.
            >
            >Let's try a concrete example.
            ><operation name="echoString">
            > <soap:operation soapAction="http://soapinterop.org/"/>
            >
            > <input>
            > <soap:body use="encoded"
            > namespace="http://soapinterop.org/"
            >
            > encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/"/>
            > </input>
            > <output>
            > <soap:body use="encoded"
            > namespace="http://soapinterop.org/"
            > encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/"/>
            > </output>
            ></operation>
            >
            >How do I write that in WSDL 1.2 to get a message sent using the SOAP 1.2
            >encoding as described in Part 2: Adjuncts of the SOAP spec?
            >
            >
            >
          • Jacek Kopecky
            Pete, whatever the value of encodingStyle in WSDL 1.2, the data on the wire must be valid according to the provided schema. The use is always literal . If the
            Message 5 of 21 , May 27, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Pete,

              whatever the value of encodingStyle in WSDL 1.2, the data on the wire
              must be valid according to the provided schema. The use is always
              "literal". If the schema is XML Schema and the encodingStyle is SOAP
              Encoding, it's only a hint to the receiver that the data are in SOAP
              Data Model and can be deserialized according to SOAP Encoding rules. The
              sender must generate the data according to the XML Schema with all its
              quirks.

              The problem is that a tool generating stuff from the WSDL will generally
              have a hard time understanding what the SOAP Data Model structure hidden
              behind the XML Schema is. It might work in languages with dynamic type
              creation where the deserializer would create the structures upon
              receiving the data; but before you have an instance, you'd have to
              create a SOAP Data Model-oriented structure that can contain any
              instance that could possibly be generated and conform to the schema.

              That is, until somebody standardizes how SOAP Data Model schema is
              converted to XML Schema and back. In that case, we may as well just use
              a SOAP Data Model schema language directly in WSDL, as I'm proposing.

              Jacek

              On Tue, 2003-05-27 at 14:00, Pete Hendry wrote:
              > It is written exactly the same but without the use attribute. The fact
              > the encodingStyle attribute is present implies the old "use='encoded'".
              > The use attribute actually has no useful purpose. This is what I think
              > the reasoning behind the decision to remove it comes down to. This seems
              > to have been assumed to mean soap-encoding can't be used any more but
              > this is not the case at all. What can and can't be used has not changed
              > at all, just how it is described in the operation.
              >
              > The WSDL1.2 version is I believe
              >
              > <operation name="echoString">
              > <soap:operation soapAction="http://soapinterop.org/"/>
              > <input>
              > <soap:body
              > namespace="http://soapinterop.org/"
              > encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/"/>
              > </input>
              > <output>
              > <soap:body
              > namespace="http://soapinterop.org/"
              > encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/"/>
              > </output>
              > </operation>
              >
              > Pete
              >
              > Rich Salz wrote:
              >
              > >Tom Jordahl wrote:
              > >
              > >
              > >>No, it's not true.
              > >>
              > >>
              > >
              > >Geez, this is starting to sounds like the Monty Python skit. Why is it
              > >so hard to make it clear? I've heard two different answers from five
              > >different WG members.
              > >
              > >Let's try a concrete example.
              > ><operation name="echoString">
              > > <soap:operation soapAction="http://soapinterop.org/"/>
              > >
              > > <input>
              > > <soap:body use="encoded"
              > > namespace="http://soapinterop.org/"
              > >
              > > encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/"/>
              > > </input>
              > > <output>
              > > <soap:body use="encoded"
              > > namespace="http://soapinterop.org/"
              > > encodingStyle="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/"/>
              > > </output>
              > ></operation>
              > >
              > >How do I write that in WSDL 1.2 to get a message sent using the SOAP 1.2
              > >encoding as described in Part 2: Adjuncts of the SOAP spec?
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              > -----------------------------------------------------------------
              > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
              >
              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              >
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >
            • Jacek Kopecky
              Rich, I ve sent a correction. 8-) Of course the actual SOAP Data Model schema language may be based on the old IDL languages (or other), I m basing mine on my
              Message 6 of 21 , May 27, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Rich,

                I've sent a correction. 8-) Of course the actual SOAP Data Model schema
                language may be based on the old IDL languages (or other), I'm basing
                mine on my recollection of the capabilities of the good old C.

                In fact, we could just stick a piece of IDL there, if we're clear enough
                on what IDL data structures mean in terms of SOAP Data Model; but then,
                IDL is not XML.

                Jacek

                On Tue, 2003-05-27 at 03:33, Rich Salz wrote:
                > Looks technically nice.
                >
                > But will anyone care, sicne they can instead plead with their vendor
                > to support the encodingStyle attribute? (If Pete Hendry's note is
                > right, and nobody posts a "correction" in the next day or two.)
                >
                > Or should it perhaps be based on another schema language, such as
                > DCE/DCOM, Corba, ASN1, Relax?
                > /r$
                > --
                > Rich Salz Chief Security Architect
                > DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com
                > XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
                >
                >
                >
                > -----------------------------------------------------------------
                > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
                >
                > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                >
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >
              • Rich Salz
                ... Tom, do you agree with Jacek s posting? You were pretty adamant, so I d like to make sure of things. Pete, how about you? /r$ -- Rich Salz, Chief Security
                Message 7 of 21 , May 27, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Jacek Kopecky wrote:
                  > whatever the value of encodingStyle in WSDL 1.2, the data on the wire
                  > must be valid according to the provided schema. The use is always
                  > "literal".

                  Tom, do you agree with Jacek's posting? You were pretty adamant, so I'd
                  like to make sure of things.

                  Pete, how about you?

                  /r$

                  --
                  Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
                  DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com
                  XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
                • Rich Salz
                  ... I believe that s really only an issue for generic applications. Most RPC applications aren t generic. /r$ -- Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
                  Message 8 of 21 , May 27, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    > The problem is that a tool generating stuff from the WSDL will generally
                    > have a hard time understanding what the SOAP Data Model structure hidden
                    > behind the XML Schema is. It might work in languages with dynamic type
                    > creation where the deserializer would create the structures upon
                    > receiving the data;

                    I believe that's really only an issue for "generic" applications. Most
                    RPC applications aren't generic.
                    /r$
                    --
                    Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
                    DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com
                    XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
                  • Jacek Kopecky
                    On the contrary, generic applications will have no problem deserializing the received data because data encoded using SOAP Encoding are nice and
                    Message 9 of 21 , May 28, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On the contrary, generic applications will have no problem deserializing
                      the received data because data encoded using SOAP Encoding are nice and
                      self-describing. The problem is that XML Schema description of a given
                      complex data structure will either be too restrictive for the serializer
                      or too general for those who might want to reconstruct the data
                      structure (not instance) - i.e. the tools generating stuff from WSDL.

                      Jacek

                      On Tue, 2003-05-27 at 16:23, Rich Salz wrote:
                      > > The problem is that a tool generating stuff from the WSDL will generally
                      > > have a hard time understanding what the SOAP Data Model structure hidden
                      > > behind the XML Schema is. It might work in languages with dynamic type
                      > > creation where the deserializer would create the structures upon
                      > > receiving the data;
                      >
                      > I believe that's really only an issue for "generic" applications. Most
                      > RPC applications aren't generic.
                      > /r$
                    • Rich Salz
                      ... Well, it can t be. But it neednt be since you can elimiate all those friendly xsi:type attributes. However, that s not what I was trying to say. I was
                      Message 10 of 21 , May 28, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > On the contrary, generic applications will have no problem deserializing
                        > the received data because data encoded using SOAP Encoding are nice and
                        > self-describing.

                        Well, it can't be. But it neednt be since you can elimiate all those
                        friendly xsi:type attributes.

                        However, that's not what I was trying to say. I was trying to point out
                        that tools for static languages don't need the data model as they can
                        be given hints (if needed) to map XSD types<>language types. I'm
                        probably still not being clear, sorry.

                        On the other hand, both you and gSOAP seem to do pretty well...
                        /r$

                        --
                        Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
                        DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com
                        XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
                      • Tom Jordahl
                        Rich, et al, I apologize for dropping out of this (very interesting) conversation as I dropped off line for about 6 weeks to go on sabbatical. I would have to
                        Message 11 of 21 , Jul 17, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Rich, et al,

                          I apologize for dropping out of this (very interesting) conversation as I dropped off line for about 6 weeks to go on sabbatical.

                          I would have to say no, I don't 100% agree with Jacek's statement that the data on the wire must always be valid according to the provided schema.

                          Here is how I see it:

                          If you have a WSDL 1.1 document that specifies rpc/encoded, you would define three attributes on the operations:
                          style="rpc"
                          use="encoded"
                          encodingStyle=http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/

                          If you want the same thing expressed in WSDL 1.2, here are the attributes you need:
                          style="rpc"
                          encodingStyle=http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/

                          As far as I know, there is no language in the current draft that forces *encoded* data to conform to the XML Schema in the <types> section. This is why certain groups (e.g. WS-I) have requested/required the world to move to literal use - that way the XML Schema can be used to validate the payload of the SOAP envelope. In WSDL 1.2, literal use means no encoding, so encodingStyle="" - the default.

                          This is why I supported the removal of the use= attribute from WSDL 1.2.

                          Does this help? I hope people remember enough about the conversation for the above to make sense.

                          --
                          Tom Jordahl
                          Macromedia Server Development

                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@...]
                          Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 10:21 AM
                          To: Tom Jordahl; peter.hendry@...
                          Cc: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Dealing with SOAP 1.2 before WSDL 1.2 comes ou t

                          Jacek Kopecky wrote:
                          > whatever the value of encodingStyle in WSDL 1.2, the data on the wire
                          > must be valid according to the provided schema. The use is always
                          > "literal".

                          Tom, do you agree with Jacek's posting? You were pretty adamant, so I'd
                          like to make sure of things.

                          Pete, how about you?

                          /r$

                          --
                          Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
                          DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com
                          XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
                        • Jacek Kopecky
                          Tom, if this is indeed the case, it has to be brought to attention of the WG because IIRC the resolution was that we remove use= encoded and behave like it
                          Message 12 of 21 , Jul 18, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Tom,

                            if this is indeed the case, it has to be brought to attention of the WG
                            because IIRC the resolution was that we remove use="encoded" and behave
                            like it was always use="document", not just remove the 'use' attribute
                            and tie the actual use according to the presence of encodingStyle.

                            Best regards,

                            Jacek Kopecky

                            Senior Architect
                            Systinet Corporation
                            http://www.systinet.com/



                            On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 21:00, Tom Jordahl wrote:
                            > Rich, et al,
                            >
                            > I apologize for dropping out of this (very interesting) conversation as I dropped off line for about 6 weeks to go on sabbatical.
                            >
                            > I would have to say no, I don't 100% agree with Jacek's statement that the data on the wire must always be valid according to the provided schema.
                            >
                            > Here is how I see it:
                            >
                            > If you have a WSDL 1.1 document that specifies rpc/encoded, you would define three attributes on the operations:
                            > style="rpc"
                            > use="encoded"
                            > encodingStyle=http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/
                            >
                            > If you want the same thing expressed in WSDL 1.2, here are the attributes you need:
                            > style="rpc"
                            > encodingStyle=http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/
                            >
                            > As far as I know, there is no language in the current draft that forces *encoded* data to conform to the XML Schema in the <types> section. This is why certain groups (e.g. WS-I) have requested/required the world to move to literal use - that way the XML Schema can be used to validate the payload of the SOAP envelope. In WSDL 1.2, literal use means no encoding, so encodingStyle="" - the default.
                            >
                            > This is why I supported the removal of the use= attribute from WSDL 1.2.
                            >
                            > Does this help? I hope people remember enough about the conversation for the above to make sense.
                            >
                            > --
                            > Tom Jordahl
                            > Macromedia Server Development
                            >
                            > -----Original Message-----
                            > From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@...]
                            > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 10:21 AM
                            > To: Tom Jordahl; peter.hendry@...
                            > Cc: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                            > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Dealing with SOAP 1.2 before WSDL 1.2 comes ou t
                            >
                            > Jacek Kopecky wrote:
                            > > whatever the value of encodingStyle in WSDL 1.2, the data on the wire
                            > > must be valid according to the provided schema. The use is always
                            > > "literal".
                            >
                            > Tom, do you agree with Jacek's posting? You were pretty adamant, so I'd
                            > like to make sure of things.
                            >
                            > Pete, how about you?
                            >
                            > /r$
                          • Tom Jordahl
                            After discussing this in the weekly WS-Description conference call is does appear that my understanding of the way this works in the current draft was wrong.
                            Message 13 of 21 , Jul 24, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              After discussing this in the weekly WS-Description conference call is does appear that my understanding of the way this works in the current draft was wrong.

                              When encodingStyle is specified, the XML Schema must still reflect the messages that are sent on the wire. This means, for instance, that if multirefs are used, the Schema must reflect this. It was pointed out that for the 80% case, that is data without graphs, that the Schema would not have to change much, if at all.


                              --
                              Tom Jordahl
                              Macromedia


                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@...]
                              Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 4:36 AM
                              To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Dealing with SOAP 1.2 before WSDL 1.2 comes
                              ou t


                              Tom,

                              if this is indeed the case, it has to be brought to attention of the WG
                              because IIRC the resolution was that we remove use="encoded" and behave
                              like it was always use="document", not just remove the 'use' attribute
                              and tie the actual use according to the presence of encodingStyle.

                              Best regards,

                              Jacek Kopecky

                              Senior Architect
                              Systinet Corporation
                              http://www.systinet.com/



                              On Thu, 2003-07-17 at 21:00, Tom Jordahl wrote:
                              > Rich, et al,
                              >
                              > I apologize for dropping out of this (very interesting) conversation as I dropped off line for about 6 weeks to go on sabbatical.
                              >
                              > I would have to say no, I don't 100% agree with Jacek's statement that the data on the wire must always be valid according to the provided schema.
                              >
                              > Here is how I see it:
                              >
                              > If you have a WSDL 1.1 document that specifies rpc/encoded, you would define three attributes on the operations:
                              > style="rpc"
                              > use="encoded"
                              > encodingStyle=http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/
                              >
                              > If you want the same thing expressed in WSDL 1.2, here are the attributes you need:
                              > style="rpc"
                              > encodingStyle=http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/
                              >
                              > As far as I know, there is no language in the current draft that forces *encoded* data to conform to the XML Schema in the <types> section. This is why certain groups (e.g. WS-I) have requested/required the world to move to literal use - that way the XML Schema can be used to validate the payload of the SOAP envelope. In WSDL 1.2, literal use means no encoding, so encodingStyle="" - the default.
                              >
                              > This is why I supported the removal of the use= attribute from WSDL 1.2.
                              >
                              > Does this help? I hope people remember enough about the conversation for the above to make sense.
                              >
                              > --
                              > Tom Jordahl
                              > Macromedia Server Development
                              >
                              > -----Original Message-----
                              > From: Rich Salz [mailto:rsalz@...]
                              > Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 10:21 AM
                              > To: Tom Jordahl; peter.hendry@...
                              > Cc: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
                              > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Dealing with SOAP 1.2 before WSDL 1.2 comes ou t
                              >
                              > Jacek Kopecky wrote:
                              > > whatever the value of encodingStyle in WSDL 1.2, the data on the wire
                              > > must be valid according to the provided schema. The use is always
                              > > "literal".
                              >
                              > Tom, do you agree with Jacek's posting? You were pretty adamant, so I'd
                              > like to make sure of things.
                              >
                              > Pete, how about you?
                              >
                              > /r$



                              -----------------------------------------------------------------
                              This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.

                              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                              soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                            • Rich Salz
                              ... I wish they had the guts to just come out and admit yes, you got screwed. /r$
                              Message 14 of 21 , Jul 24, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > It was pointed out that for the 80% case, that is data without graphs,
                                > that the Schema would not have to change much, if at all.

                                I wish they had the guts to just come out and admit "yes, you got screwed."

                                /r$
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.