[XML-SIG] WSDL library ?

[Rich Salz]

> [T]here are so many levels (see below). Often you
> see an element type with the same name as a part, with the same name as
> an operation, with the same name as a port type. You've got four levels
> to do one thing.


I heartily agree this is a problem.

> Another part is using XML Schema as an "abstract type description
> language". It's a little ridiculous to use a schema language without
> standard OO notions of "property", "array", "struct" etc. But I'm sure
> I'd get voted down.


Jacek of the encoding task force of the XMLP WG posted a really good 
rationale for the current, sub-optimal, situation.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Feb/0209.html


> Of course it should be possible to refer to an XML schema for
> *document-oriented* SOAP. But for RPC-oriented SOAP, older IDLs are
> actually much simpler.


DCE IDL; it's an ISO standard. :)


> WSDL 1.2 should be formally split into two languages


The SAP rep just posted a message asking for this.


>  2. The interface description language should be as easy to read and
> write (semantically, not syntactically) as standard IDLs like CORBA and
> COM IDLs. There is a sense that WSDL is much, much more complicated and
> this is going to hurt its adoption on the open Internet.


You wanna get rid of the "abstract" layers?


>  3. If the interface definition language is to be used both for RPC
> *and* document-style interfaces then it needs first-class concepts of
> array and struct, which XML Schema lacks, for RPC-style interfaces.
> Arguably, using schema for both kinds of interfaces is more confusing
> than helpful.


Not sure what we could do.
	/r$
-- 
Zolera Systems, http://www.zolera.com
Information Integrity, XML Security