

Re: First Class Header Proposals

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 16:03:14 +0100
To: Asir Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com>
Message-ID: <20050217150314.GF2676@w3.org>
Hi Asir.

* Asir Vedamuthu <asirv@webmethods.com> [2005-02-07 05:01-0800]
> Attached docs are two variations of the First Class Header Proposal - A and
> B. There is one principal difference between these two proposals: A uses a
> set of element declarations and B uses a complex type definition to describe
> headers.
> Hope, these docs, SOAP Header Blocks in WSDL [1] proposal, Headers Proposal
> V1.2 [2], and other AD feature issues [3][4] provide sufficient info to act
> on LC76d [5].

A couple of questions about the requiredness of the headers:

- why do we need a mechanism to disable header generation? It seems to
  me that either the binding supports headers, and then you should use
  them if you need to, or it doesn't, and then that's it. Why would
  one want to disable header generation for a particular binding?

- I don't understand the purpose of @required either; with your
  element/type declaration, couldn't you express this with minOccurs?



Hugo Haas - W3C

Received on Thursday, 17 February 2005 15:03:15 GMT
