attachment

This sounds very much like the issue with PSI and the WSDL 1.1.......:) I'd suggest we try to provide a SOAP 1.2 "template". for operations and responses as Bill suggests and such that an interoperable "hand coded" WIMS interface could be created.  If vendors choose to try to machine generate the interfaces based on some current/ future WSDL description, then it should be understood that some "by hand" adjustment to the resulting SOAP 1.2 messages may be required........ Otherwise how would one actually know what to expect/generate over the "wire".. JT <table width=100%> <tr valign=top> <td> <td>"McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com> Sent by: owner-wims@pwg.org 11/10/2005 11:50 AM <td>                To:        "'thrasher@lexmark.com'" <thrasher@lexmark.com>, wims@pwg.org         cc:                 Subject:        RE: WIMS> Re: Accuracy of SOAP examples</table> Hi Jerry, [[Background for all readers - the WSDL/2.0 _working_drafts_ have just passed through a second W3C 'last call'.  And the W3C WSD WG has yet to agree to a new timeline for addressing the W3C last call comments and publishing new working drafts for potential advancement to W3C CR (Candidate Recommendation) status.  After the W3C CRs are adopted, proof of implementation MUST be verified before they can advance to W3C PR (Proposed Recommendation) and subsequently to W3C REC (Recommendation - the equivalent of an IETF Standard).  There are NO WSDL/2.0 toolkits in existence yet!]] I agree that SOAP examples should be rigorous.  The difficulty I see with generating and reviewing these examples is that even the WSDL/2.0 Part 2 Adjuncts spec has extensions in there for forcing particular serialization and headers in the resulting SOAP/1.2 (or SOAP/1.1) messages and in the UNDERLYING HTTP/1.1 messages and headers. That is, merely writing accurate WSDL/2.0 for WIMS will NOT guarantee interoperable SOAP/HTTP messages. Bill queried whether we could/should just write accurate SOAP/1.2 Operation Request and Response examples and avoid the WSDL/2.0 work for now.  I suggested that I think it will be very hard to write a SOAP/1.2 example that can be certain to be generated by ANY future WSDL/2.0 definition. Note that the XML 'direct' bindings in Appendix A of WIMS are straight MIME-based encodings of the actual WIMS XML messages (defined in our WIMS Message schema) and are NOT dependent on WSDL definitions for interoperability (but of course, they're not SOAP-based either).   Note further that most of the WSDL/2.0 examples I've been able to find so far do NOT use SOAP - they use the separate direct binding of WSDL/2.0 to HTTP/1.1 and they associate WSDL/2.0 Interface Faults with HTTP faults (not SOAP faults).  These examples reflect the real world fact that existing Web servers are serving HTML/XML directly over HTTP and NOT using SOAP (because Browsers don't understand SOAP encodings). I hope to have WSDL/2.0 and SOAP/1.2 (over HTTP/1.1) examples for review in a few weeks.  But it will NOT be possible to do machine validation of these examples, so they may not add the needed clarity to the WIMS over SOAP bindings. Cheers, - 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@sharplabs.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-wims@pwg.org [mailto:owner-wims@pwg.org]On Behalf Of thrasher@lexmark.com Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 4:06 PM To: wims@pwg.org Subject: WIMS> Re: Accuracy of SOAP examples Regarding the question in the minutes about the accuracy of the SOAP examples in the WIMS specification. I would think that the point of the WIMS protocol specification is to provide enough information for independent non-WIMS WG members to pick up the document and create a WIMS Manager or a WIMS Agent that would be able to generate/consume SOAP messages to/from a WIMS Manager/Agent from another independent non-WG member. Hence, we should provide an unambiguous definition of how the WIMS Operations, Actions, and Responses should be generated in SOAP 1.2. Short of that, we have created an abstract document that nobody could really implement. JT --- Forwarded by Jerry Thrasher/Lex/Lexmark on 11/09/2005 03:49 PM ----- Harry Lewis <harryl@us.ibm.com> Sent by: owner-wims@pwg.org 11/09/2005 03:31 PM                To:        wims@pwg.org        cc:                Subject:        WIMS> WIMS Nov 9 minutes ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/wims/minutes/wims_051109.pdf Next meeting Wed, Nov 16                2 Noon Eastern (NYC) Toll Free:     1-866-365-4406 International: 00+1+303-248-9655 Passcode:      2635888# ---------------------------------------------- Harry Lewis IBM STSM Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group http://www.pwg.org IBM Printing Systems http://www.ibm.com/printers 303-924-5337 ----------------------------------------------