WIMS> Normative Ref to WSDL/2.0 would block WIMS as PWG CS

WIMS> Normative Ref to WSDL/2.0 would block WIMS as PWG CS

WIMS> Normative Ref to WSDL/2.0 would block WIMS as PWG CS

McDonald, Ira imcdonald at sharplabs.com
Mon Oct 31 12:53:14 EST 2005


Per the WG last comment on WIMS Protocol spec last week (for examples
of WSDL definitions and actual SOAP messages), I've been working on WSDL
for the WIMS Protocol -  following the excellent examples in the recent 
WS-Polling submission from IBM to W3C.

Good News - conveniently, I recently released the WIMS Message schema,
which is most of the work - the WSDL itself is very small by comparison.

Bad news - we all repeatedly agreed to make the non-standards-track
bindings (using WSDL/1.1 and SOAP/1.1) _optional_ for compatibility and
make standards-track bindings (using WSDL/2.0 and SOAP/1.2) _mandatory_ 
to implement.

But, the W3C site now says (at http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/):

"Below are the targeted publication dates for the WSDL 2.0 drafts:

  Second Last Call
    June 2005
  Candidate Recommendation
    October 2005
  Proposed Recommendation
    Early 2006"

PSI/1.0 fudged on this and standardized a SOAP/1.1 binding described in
WSDL/1.1 (calling them 'defacto industry standards' - which is true, but 
they're still not interoperable).

So the WIMS/1.0 Protocol spec will have to:

(a) Use the above SOAP/1.1 fudge for normative bindings;
(b) Wait for the approval of WSDL/2.0 (now a working draft) by W3C;
(c) Use SOAP/1.2 for normative bindings
    and INFORMATIVE references to the WSDL/1.1 W3C Note 
    and INFORMATIVE examples of WSDL/1.1 for the SOAP/1.1 binding.

My apologies for not realizing this problem earlier.

- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald at sharplabs.com

More information about the Wims mailing list