Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 25: Does binding.ws imply SOAP

[Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>]

Following all of Mike's points....

Mike Edwards wrote:

OF7DB247AC.5E0734B7-ON8025745C.002AC06B-8025745C.002B3C55@uk.ibm.com" type="cite">
Folks,

I agree with the general direction advocated here:

1) <binding.ws/> implies a WSDL-related binding

2) <binding.ws/> SHOULD imply a SOAP binding

3) <binding.ws/> WITHOUT an explicitly supplied WSDL MUST support SOAP & HTTP

I believe we require supporting binding.ws with nothing additional supported, as in:
"<binding.ws/>"

Coupled with Mike's statement above, this implies that a conforming implementation MUST support SOAP, even if SOAP is not used in a particular configuration.

Is that the question or is the question more specifically that it is always true that a binding.ws implementation "alwaysProvides" "soap"?

If you can't tell, I'm slightly lost as to the actual issue.

-Eric.