[resend] Part 2 - {element declaration} property for SOAP Header Block component

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[resend] Part 2 - {element declaration} property for SOAP Header Block component

Jonathan Marsh-2

Thanks for your comment.  The WS Description Working Group tracked this issue as a CR095 [1].

 

Re your first question, yes indeed the syntax does not allow #any for a SOAP header block.

 

Re your second question, the Working Group flipped it and posited why should #any be allowed?  The WSDL description does not preclude SOAP headers from being added in addition to those not described explicitly with wsoap:header.  Using #any in this case is by definition a no-op.  Making a specific allowance in the language serves no purpose other than to complicate the language.

 

With these decisions, the Working Group closed the issue with no change to the existing language of the spec.

 

Unless you let us know otherwise by mid-January, we will assume you agree with the resolution of this issue.

 

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/5/cr-issues/#CR095

 

 


From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Ramkumar Menon
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:02 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Part 2 - {element declaration} property for SOAP Header Block component

 

Gurus,

 

 

{element declaration} for a SOAP header block component is defined in Part 2 as follows.

"The element declaration from the {element declarations} resolved to by the value of the element attribute information item. It is an error for the element attribute information item to have a value and that value does not resolve to a global element declaration from the { element declarations} property of the Description component. "
The assertion SOAPHeaderBlock-5052  has been defined to enforce this.

 

My Question is - Does this prevent the header blocks to be defined using "#any" as opposed to an explicit element declaration ? 

If the answer is a yes, should we prevent this in first place ? If so, what are the known issues in allowing such a definition ?

 

rgds,

Ram

 

--
Shift to the left, shift to the right!
Pop up, push down, byte, byte, byte!

-Ramkumar Menon
A typical Macroprocessor