issues/wsd-issues.xml - view

File: [Public] / issues / wsd-issues.xml
Revision 1.1.1.1 (vendor branch): download - view: text, annotated - select for diffs
Wed Apr 3 16:03:17 2002 UTC (22 years, 2 months ago) by jmoreau
Branches: avendor, MAIN
CVS tags: arelease, HEAD

Initial revision.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='wsd-issues-html.xsl'?> <!DOCTYPE issues SYSTEM "wsd-issues.dtd"> <issues update="$Date: 2002/04/03 16:03:17 $"> <issue> <issue-num>19</issue-num> <title>http:urlEncoded, http:urlReplacement issues</title> <locus>Spec</locus> <requirement>n/a</requirement> <priority>Design</priority> <topic></topic> <status>Active</status> <originator><a href="mailto:gisle@activestate.com">Gisle Aas</a></originator> <responsible>Unassigned</responsible> <description> [<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wsdl/message/466?threaded=1">email</a>] <pre>The spec does not say much about how values of abstract types are to be stringified when the type is something else xsd:string. Should it just be stringified as XML (and then URLencoded)? If it is xsd:string, then it is unclear how chars outside the ASCII range are to be handled. UTLencoded UTF8 perhaps? Is it legal for the part referenced to reference a schema element instead of a type? For http:urlReplacement it not not clear what URL escaping should be done on the replacement text. - Is an embedded "?" to be expanded into "?" or "%3f". - Is an embedded "%3f" to be expanded into "%3f" or "%253f" For http:urlReplacement it is not clear what should happen for "search patterns" where there is no correspondingly named part in the message.</pre> </description> <proposal> </proposal> <resolution> </resolution> </issue> <issue> <issue-num>18</issue-num> <title>Default for transport of <soap:binding></title> <locus>Spec</locus> <requirement>n/a</requirement> <priority>Design</priority> <topic></topic> <status>Active</status> <originator><a href="mailto:gisle@activestate.com">Gisle Aas</a></originator> <responsible>Unassigned</responsible> <description> [<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wsdl/message/582?threaded=1">email</a>] <pre>The _transport_ attribute of <soap:binding> is optional, but it is not clear to me what the default is. Is "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/http" the default? If so, shouldn't the schema in section A-4.1 declare this value as the default?</pre> </description> <proposal> </proposal> <resolution> </resolution> </issue> <issue> <issue-num>17</issue-num> <title>nowhere to specify actor URI in WSDL ?</title> <locus>Spec</locus> <requirement>n/a</requirement> <priority>Design</priority> <topic></topic> <status>Active</status> <originator><a href="mailto:simon@zaks.demon.co.uk">Simon Fell</a></originator> <responsible>Unassigned</responsible> <description> [<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wsdl/message/638?threaded=1">email</a>] Is there anyway to specify the actor URI for a header in WSDL, i can't spot anything ? </description> <proposal> </proposal> <resolution> </resolution> </issue> <issue> <issue-num>16</issue-num> <title>Binding operations in portType</title> <locus>Spec</locus> <requirement>n/a</requirement> <priority>Editorial</priority> <topic></topic> <status>Active</status> <originator><a href="mailto:simon@zaks.demon.co.uk">Simon Fell</a></originator> <responsible>Unassigned</responsible> <description> [<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wsdl/message/733?threaded=1">email</a>] Does a binding have to specify all the operations in a portType ? I thought not, but i can't spot anything in the spec that says one way or the other. </description> <proposal> </proposal> <resolution> </resolution> </issue> <issue> <issue-num>15</issue-num> <title>Missing <document> tag</title> <locus>Spec</locus> <requirement>n/a</requirement> <priority>Design</priority> <topic></topic> <status>Active</status> <originator><a href=" mailto:graham-glass@mindspring.com">Graham Glass</a></originator> <responsible>Unassigned</responsible> <description> [<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Jun/0197.html">email</a>] I'd like to see changed with the WSDL specification is the ability to add <documentation> tags to a <part>. right now, you can't officially comment arguments to an operation, which seems like an error. </description> <proposal> </proposal> <resolution> </resolution> </issue> <issue> <issue-num>14</issue-num> <title>Higher-level support for SOAP extensions/modules</title> <locus>Spec</locus> <requirement>n/a</requirement> <priority>Design</priority> <topic></topic> <status>Active</status> <originator><a href="mailto:gdaniels@macromedia.com">Glen Daniels</a></originator> <responsible>Unassigned</responsible> <description> [<a href="http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Mar/0091.html">email</a>] At present, it is possible with WSDL 1.1 to specify particular headers which should be included with particular messages. This was, I believe, a reasonable first stab at integrating headers with a description language, but it falls far short of being able to support the kind of rich semantic additions that are going to be coming down the line as SOAP extensions over the next few months/years. Without going into too much detail, I'd like to see us require the ability to specify that a particular SOAP "module" is offered by, or required by, particular services or operations. SOAP 1.2 (part 1, sec 3) discusses the concept of SOAP "features", which are semantic extensions named with a URI and implemented by either SOAP extensions (headers) or bindings. Bindings already have a requirement for URI naming, and I'm attempting to push for extensions to do the same. Once we have URIs for such things, it becomes possible to say something like "this operation supports the 'http://www.w3.org/2002/06/reliable-message' extension", which would imply some set of headers/exchanges mandated by that specification. It's unclear to me as to whether we would require a schema description of every possible header which such an extension might produce, but that's another facet of this which we should discuss. This is also a potentially complex issue in that it gets into situations where messages that are not actually specified directly in the WSDL may become part of the exchange due to the extension specs, but I think we need to figure this stuff out if we hope to live in a world with true "orthogonal extensibility" and some hope of negotiation/interop. </description> <proposal> </proposal> <resolution> </resolution> </issue> <issue> <issue-num>13</issue-num> <title>Parameter Order missing from schema</title> <locus>Spec</locus> <requirement>n/a</requirement> <priority>Editorial</priority> <topic></topic> <status>Active</status> <originator><a href="mailto:jacek@idoox.com">Jacek Kopecky</a></originator> <responsible>Unassigned</responsible> <description> [<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wsdl/message/589">email</a>] This is an editorial issue for WSDL 1.1 - the schema doesn't declare the parameterOrder attribute. </description> <proposal> </proposal> <resolution> </resolution> </issue> <issue> <issue-num>12</issue-num> <title><part> name attribute</title> <locus>Spec</locus> <requirement>n/a</requirement> <priority>Editorial</priority> <topic></topic> <status>Active</status> <originator><a href="mailto:gisle@activestate.com">Gisle Aas</a></originator> <responsible>Unassigned</responsible> <description> [<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wsdl/message/563">email</a>] <pre> According to the schema in section A-4.1 the 'name' attribute of <part> is optional. This is not indicated in the grammar in section 2.1 and section 2.3. Section 2.3 also states that "The part _name_ attribute provides a unique name among all the parts of the enclosing message". I believe the schema is wrong and that the definition of "partType" should be changed to: <complexType name="partType"> <complexContent> <extension base="wsdl:openAtts"> <attribute name="name" type="NMTOKEN" use="required"/> <attribute name="type" type="QName" use="optional"/> <attribute name="element" type="QName" use="optional"/> </extension> </complexContent> </complexType></pre> </description> <proposal> </proposal> <resolution> </resolution> </issue> <issue> <issue-num>11</issue-num> <title><import> grammar</title> <locus>Spec</locus> <requirement>n/a</requirement> <priority>Editorial</priority> <topic></topic> <status>Active</status> <originator><a href="mailto:gisle@activestate.com">Giles Aas</a></originator> <responsible>Unassigned</responsible> <description> [<a href="">email</a>] <pre> According to the schema in section A-4.1 the <import> element might take an subordinate documentation element. The grammar in section 2.1 ought to be changed to say: <wsdl:import namespace="uri" location="uri"> * <wsdl:documentation .... />? </wsdl:import> In WSDL 1.1 (2001-03-15) it simply says. <import namespace="uri" location="uri"/>* The namespace qualifier for <import> is also missing in the current text.</pre> </description> <proposal> </proposal> <resolution> </resolution> </issue> <issue> <issue-num>10</issue-num> <title>Example 3 element order bug</title> <locus>Spec</locus> <requirement>n/a</requirement> <priority>Editorial</priority> <topic></topic> <status>Active</status> <originator><a href="mailto:gisle@activestate.com">Gisle Aas</a></originator> <responsible>Unassigned</responsible> <description> [<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wsdl/message/560">email</a>] In example 3 the <types> element comes after <service>. This is not allowed according to the WSDL schema (A 4.1) or the grammar in section 2.1. </description> <proposal> </proposal> <resolution> </resolution> </issue> <issue> <issue-num>9</issue-num> <title>Example 1 type</title> <locus>Spec</locus> <requirement>n/a</requirement> <priority>Editorial</priority> <topic></topic> <status>Active</status> <originator><a href="mailto:gisle@activestate.com">Gisle Aas</a></originator> <responsible>Unassigned</responsible> <description> [<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wsdl/message/557">email</a>] <pre>In example 1 of WSDL 1.1 (2001-03-15) the binding reference from the port does not resolve because of a typo. The binding name should be: tns:StockQuoteSoapBinding The example is missing "Soap" in there. <a href="mailto:simon@zaks.demon.co.uk">Simon Fell</a> also notes that examples 2,4 and 5 have the same problem.</pre> </description> <proposal> </proposal> <resolution> </resolution> </issue> <issue> <issue-num>8</issue-num> <title>Grammar for Attribute Extensibility</title> <locus>Spec</locus> <requirement>n/a</requirement> <priority>Editorial</priority> <topic></topic> <status>Active</status> <originator>Kevin Liu</originator> <responsible>Unassigned</responsible> <description> [<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wsdl/message/412">email</a>] In section 2.1, extensibility is expilictly stated for all the elements, but not for attributes. In the WSDL Schema, PartType is extended from "openAtts". This means anyAttributes can be defined in addition to the three optional attributes specified for Part (name, type, element). Though it mentions in section 2.3 that "other message-typing attributes may be defined as long as they use a namespace different from that of WSDL", it would be better for those who use the grammar as a convenient reference if this is also reflected in section 2.1. </description> <proposal> </proposal> <resolution> </resolution> </issue> <issue> <issue-num>7</issue-num> <title>xsd:binary in example</title> <locus>Spec</locus> <requirement>n/a</requirement> <priority>Editorial</priority> <topic></topic> <status>Active</status> <originator>Jeff Lansing</originator> <responsible>Unassigned</responsible> <description> [<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wsdl/message/446">email</a>] The sample in <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl#_http-e">section 4.1</a> of the spec uses xsd:binary which doesn't exist, its not clear what the correct type to use in its place would be. </description> <proposal> </proposal> <resolution> </resolution> </issue> <issue> <issue-num>6</issue-num> <title>HTTP Binding</title> <locus>Spec</locus> <requirement>n/a</requirement> <priority>Design</priority> <topic></topic> <status>Active</status> <originator><a href="mailto:gisle@activestate.com">Gisle Aas</a></originator> <responsible>Unassigned</responsible> <description> [<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wsdl/message/466">email</a>] <pre>The spec does not say much about how values of abstract types are to be stringified when the type is something else xsd:string. Should it just be stringified as XML (and then URLencoded)? If it is xsd:string, then it is unclear how chars outside the ASCII range are to be handled. UTLencoded UTF8 perhaps? Is it legal for the part referenced to reference a schema element instead of a type? For http:urlReplacement it not not clear what URL escaping should be done on the replacement text. - Is an embedded "?" to be expanded into "?" or "%3f". - Is an embedded "%3f" to be expanded into "%3f" or "%253f" For http:urlReplacement it is not clear what should happen for "search patterns" where there is no correspondingly named part in the message.</pre> </description> <proposal> </proposal> <resolution> </resolution> </issue> <issue> <issue-num>5</issue-num> <title>Encoding Style</title> <locus>Spec</locus> <requirement>n/a</requirement> <priority>Design</priority> <topic></topic> <status>Active</status> <originator><a href="mailto:rineholt@us.ibm.com">Rine Holt</a></originator> <responsible>Unassigned</responsible> <description> [<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wsdl/message/456">email</a>] SOAP defines EncodingStyle as being scoped at the element + child level [the same as namespaces], meaning that a single SOAP message may contain different parts with different encoding styles, but in WSDL this is scoped at the message level, i.e. the whole message uses a particular encoding style, so there are potential SOAP messages that can't be modelled in WSDL. </description> <proposal> </proposal> <resolution> </resolution> </issue> <issue> <issue-num>4</issue-num> <title>Namespaces</title> <locus>Spec</locus> <requirement>n/a</requirement> <priority>Design</priority> <topic></topic> <status>Active</status> <originator>Matt Long</originator> <responsible>Unassigned</responsible> <description> [<a href="http://wsdl.SoapWare.Org/stories/storyReader$15">email</a>] <pre>I ran across this example at http://www.w3.org/2001/03/14-annotated-WSDL-examples The example is correct but does emphasize a concern. 1) when a part is typed "element" and referenced to schema 2) and the binding's soap:body "namespace" attribute is used Spec reads Section 3.5 ...although the namespace attribute only applies to content not explicitly defined by the abstract types. ... A case becomes present where the namespace attribute can be declared and the element's namespace *is* explicitly declared by the targetNamespace of the schema (assuming XSD) which is the namespace to be used and *NOT* the text of the soap:body namespace attribute. However, if the schema was non-XSD *and* no targetNamespace (or such) could be isolated, the value of the namespace would default to the "namespace" attribute. This seems confusing and it would seem in the interests of best practices to either 1) declare the namespace attribute of the soap:body element equal to the intended namespace or 2) omit the namespace attribute *if* the element is explictly declared in schema. (I would think (1) would clear any garbled confusion in either case).</pre> </description> <proposal> </proposal> <resolution> </resolution> </issue> <issue> <issue-num>3</issue-num> <title>Arrays</title> <locus>Spec</locus> <requirement>n/a</requirement> <priority>Design</priority> <topic></topic> <status>Active</status> <originator>?</originator> <responsible>Unassigned</responsible> <description> [<a href="http://wsdl.SoapWare.Org/stories/storyReader$14">email</a>]<br/> Possibly one of the most talked about parts of WSDL: <ul> <li>What is the standard way to describe an array?</li> <li>How many other valid ways are there to describe an array?</li> <li>How do i define more complex types?</li> <li>Does the new WSDL 1.1 approach to arrays support all the different array types in SOAP?</li> </ul> [needs review] </description> <proposal> </proposal> <resolution> </resolution> </issue> <issue> <issue-num>2</issue-num> <title>SOAPAction [2]</title> <locus>Spec</locus> <requirement>n/a</requirement> <priority>Design</priority> <topic></topic> <status>Active</status> <originator><a href="mailto:gdaniels@macromedia.com">Glen Daniels</a></originator> <responsible>Unassigned</responsible> <description> <pre><quote section="3.4 soap:operation"> The soapAction attribute specifies the value of the SOAPAction header for this operation. This URI value should be used directly as the value for the SOAPAction header; no attempt should be made to make a relative URI value absolute when making the request. For the HTTP protocol binding of SOAP, this is value required (it has no default value). For other SOAP protocol bindings, it MUST NOT be specified, and the soap:operation element MAY be omitted. <quote> It's my opinion that WSDL should not specify the absolute exclusion of the SOAPAction for non-HTTP bindings. What if an SMTP binding wants to use exactly the same URI, but encapsulate it in an "X-SOAPAction" header?</pre> </description> <proposal> </proposal> <resolution> </resolution> </issue> <issue> <issue-num>1</issue-num> <title>SOAPAction [1]</title> <locus>Spec</locus> <requirement>n/a</requirement> <priority>Design</priority> <topic></topic> <status>Active</status> <originator><a href="mailto:simon@zaks.demon.co.uk">Simon Fell</a></originator> <responsible>Unassigned</responsible> <description> <pre><quote section="3.4 soap:operation"> The soapAction attribute specifies the value of the SOAPAction header for this operation. This URI value should be used directly as the value for the SOAPAction header; no attempt should be made to make a relative URI value absolute when making the request. For the HTTP protocol binding of SOAP, this is value required (it has no default value). For other SOAP protocol bindings, it MUST NOT be specified, and the soap:operation element MAY be omitted. <quote> Does this mean the SOAPAction value should include the quotes needed ?, i.e. if you're expecting a SOAP request POST .... SOAPAction: "/foo/bar" do you include the quotes in the soap:operation ?, e.g. <soap:operation soapAction="/foo/bar" /> or not?, if not and the soapAction is mandatory for HTTP bindings, how do you specify that you want an empty SOAPAction header ? e.g. POST .... SOAPAction: </pre> </description> <proposal> </proposal> <resolution> </resolution> </issue>  <maintainer> <initials>HH</initials> <fullname>Hugo Haas</fullname> <uri>http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/</uri> </maintainer> </issues>