attachment

<html><body> <DIV>Option D would appear most best. But without minutes of meeting, it is unclear what the comment was, what the implications were, and what the WG beleives is necessary to address it.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Bill Wagner</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>After having the opportunity to speak with Ira regarding this, we think there may also be an "option D" which is to describe normative Soap v1.2 but supply NO WSDL example at this time.. rather indicate that WSDL 2.0 is in progress and it is our intent to supply normative WSDL following adoption of WSDL 2.0 as a W3C candidate recommendation.</FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>---------------------------------------------- <BR>Harry Lewis <BR>IBM STSM<BR>Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group<BR>http://www.pwg.org<BR>IBM Printing Systems <BR>http://www.ibm.com/printers<BR>303-924-5337<BR>---------------------------------------------- </FONT><BR><BR><BR> <TABLE width="100%"> <TBODY> <TR vAlign=top> <TD width="40%"><FONT face=sans-serif size=1><B>"McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com></B> </FONT><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>Sent by: owner-wims@pwg.org</FONT> <P><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>10/31/2005 10:53 AM</FONT> </P> <TD width="59%"> <TABLE width="100%"> <TBODY> <TR vAlign=top> <TD> <DIV align=right><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>To</FONT></DIV> <TD><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>"'wims@pwg.org'" <wims@pwg.org></FONT> <TR vAlign=top> <TD> <DIV align=right><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>cc</FONT></DIV> <TD> <TR vAlign=top> <TD> <DIV align=right><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>Subject</FONT></DIV> <TD><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>WIMS> Normative Ref to WSDL/2.0 would block WIMS as PWG CS</FONT></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR> <TABLE> <TBODY> <TR vAlign=top> <TD> <TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR><BR><BR><TT><FONT size=2>Hi,<BR><BR>Per the WG last comment on WIMS Protocol spec last week (for examples<BR>of WSDL definitions and actual SOAP messages), I've been working on WSDL<BR>for the WIMS Protocol -  following the excellent examples in the recent <BR>WS-Polling submission from IBM to W3C.<BR><BR>Good News - conveniently, I recently released the WIMS Message schema,<BR>which is most of the work - the WSDL itself is very small by comparison.<BR><BR>Bad news - we all repeatedly agreed to make the non-standards-track<BR>bindings (using WSDL/1.1 and SOAP/1.1) _optional_ for compatibility and<BR>make standards-track bindings (using WSDL/2.0 and SOAP/1.2) _mandatory_ <BR>to implement.<BR><BR>But, the W3C site now says (at http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/):<BR><BR>"Below are the targeted publication dates for the WSDL 2.0 drafts:<BR><BR> Second Last Call<BR>   June 2005<BR> Candidate Recommendation<BR>   October 2005<BR> Proposed Recommendation<BR>   Early 2006"<BR><BR>PSI/1.0 fudged on this and standardized a SOAP/1.1 binding described in<BR>WSDL/1.1 (calling them 'defacto industry standards' - which is true, but <BR>they're still not interoperable).<BR><BR>So the WIMS/1.0 Protocol spec will have to:<BR><BR>(a) Use the above SOAP/1.1 fudge for normative bindings;<BR>   <or><BR>(b) Wait for the approval of WSDL/2.0 (now a working draft) by W3C;<BR>   <or><BR>(c) Use SOAP/1.2 for normative bindings<BR>   and INFORMATIVE references to the WSDL/1.1 W3C Note <BR>   and INFORMATIVE examples of WSDL/1.1 for the SOAP/1.1 binding.<BR><BR>My apologies for not realizing this problem earlier.<BR><BR>Cheers,<BR>- Ira<BR><BR><BR>Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)<BR>Blue Roof Music / High North Inc<BR>PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839<BR>phone: +1-906-494-2434<BR>email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com<BR></FONT></TT><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></body></html>