W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > September 2002

Re: Issue 221: Moving forward

From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 08:20:22 -0400
Cc: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "W3C Archive" <www-archive@w3.org>
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Message-Id: <D540570D-CEEE-11D6-BF96-0003937568DC@sun.com>

I prefer the following that Noah and I discussed in one of the email 
threads. It preserves the resolution semantices but uses the same 
terminology as the rest of the spec (e.g. SOAP receiver instead of 
Receiver, PIII instead of PIs) and reads better IMHO:

"SOAP messages sent by initial SOAP senders MUST NOT contain processing
instruction information items. SOAP intermediaries MUST NOT insert 
processing instruction information items in SOAP messages they relay.
SOAP receivers receiving a SOAP message
containing a processing instruction information item SHOULD generate a
SOAP fault with the Value of Code set to "env:Sender". However, in the
case where performance considerations make it impractical for an
intermediary to detect processing instruction information items in a
message to be relayed, such intermediaries MAY leave the processing
instruction information items unchanged in the relayed message."

Marc.

On Sunday, Sep 22, 2002, at 22:14 US/Eastern, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen 
wrote:

>
> On the issue of issue 221 on PIs [1], I started writing up the four
> possible solutions that have been brought up in the editors' discussion
> to date. The list was a result of discussion with Noah and Gudge and
> generally an output of the various email threads.
>
> However, looking through the discussion threads, the WG resolution
> agreed upon the following resolution [2] on Sep 4 which happened as a
> result of a call for clarification of the initial resolution coming out
> of the f2f:
>
> * * * * *
>
> Except in the special case of intermediaries (see below), envelopes
> transmitted by SOAP senders MUST NOT contain PIs.
>
> Receivers (including intermediaries)  receiving an envelope with a PI
> SHOULD fault with a Sender fault. However, in the case where 
> performance
> considerations make it impractical for an intermediary to detect PIs in
> a message to be relayed, such intermediaries MAY leave the PIs 
> unchanged
> in the relayed message.
>
> * * * * *
>
> Given that nobody has raised WG objections to this resolution, I am at 
> a
> loss as to why we as editors don't just incorporate the resolution. At
> this point in time, if either of us can't live with the resolution then
> we should raise an objection at the WG level but this would be outside
> the scope of our editorial role.
>
> Any reason not just to use the text above?
>
> Henrik
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x221
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002Sep/0016.html
>
>
--
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Center, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Monday, 23 September 2002 08:20:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:23 GMT