W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > February 2003

RE: [xmlProfiles-29] TAG recommendation for work on subset of XML 1.1

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 18:43:39 -0500
To: "Paul Cotton" <pcotton@microsoft.com>
Cc: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk, richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk, www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF47B9BA4C.3C3248CE-ON85256CC5.0081492C@lotus.com>

Paul Cotton writes:

>> Looking back at the history of this issue [1], 
>> message [2] from David Fallside officially 
>> describes the XMLP Working Group's rationale for
>> their use of a subset of XML. 

Indeed, and I was actually the original author of much of [2], which I 
drafted (with help) on behalf of the XMLP workgroup.  I believe its 
description of XML's use of SOAP is completely consistent with my note of 
today.  I don't believe [2] anywhere suggests (or discourages, for that 
matter) the notion that a general purpose subset of XML might be a good 
idea.  It surely doesn't require it.   All the note does is explain why 
SOAP does not allow these infoset items to appear in the infoset of a SOAP 
envelope, as synthesized at a sender, and what the ramifications are as 
the message is transmitted and processed by receivers.

>> In addition your own message [4], gave an excellent 
>> rationale for why SOAP used such a subset.

Thank you.

>> All of these inputs were important in convincing 
>> me as a TAG member to support the TAG's 
>> recommendation [4] on this issue.  I invite
>> participants in this thread to review these 
>> earlier messages,

I have no problem with the fact that you or anyone else might have seen 
the restrictions on SOAP message content and said:  gee, maybe other users 
of XML will want the performance or simplification that comes with similar 
restrictions?  Maybe we should bless this as a new subset of XML? 

My points are just that (a) I don't think it was ever a goal or an 
intention of the XMLP team to define such a subset, or to consider whether 
our subset would be useful to others...if we've achieved that it's 
accidental IMO (b) Henry used the term "SOAP Requirements", which I 
perhaps incorrectly read as suggesting that the SOAP CR. in some way 
implied  a requirement for a general-purpose subset of XML...I don't think 
we require any such thing.  SOAP is working just fine with XML as it is. 
(I now belated realize that Henry may have meant only SOAP's internal 
technical requirements, as opposed to a requirement that the subset be 
made a standard.  If so, my apologies for clogging the list with my 
response to his note.)

Again, if XMLP's work on our application of XML suggested a useful 
generalization for others, that's fine.  I just don't think it was our 
intention to promote that generalization, to discourage it, or to consider 
whether the specific limitations in our use would be the right ones for 
others. 

I feel I've said this often enough that I'd prefer not to repeat it again, 
so I will probably not reply to further notes unless there's something 
new.  Thank you!

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------







"Paul Cotton" <pcotton@microsoft.com>
02/06/03 05:52 PM

 
        To:     <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
        cc:     <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, <www-tag@w3.org>, "Henry S. Thompson" 
<ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
        Subject:        RE: [xmlProfiles-29] TAG recommendation for work on subset of XML 1.1
Categories: 
 




>> As far as I know, SOAP hasn't expressed a requirement for anything. 

Looking back at the history of this issue [1], message [2] from David
Fallside officially describes the XMLP Working Group's rationale for
their use of a subset of XML.  And Mike Champion sent a message [3]
which gives the official W3C Web Services Architecture WG position
supporting the existence of this subset.

In addition your own message [4], gave an excellent rationale for why
SOAP used such a subset.

All of these inputs were important in convincing me as a TAG member to
support the TAG's recommendation [4] on this issue.  I invite
participants in this thread to review these earlier messages.

/paulc

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#xmlProfiles-29 
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Dec/0119.html 
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jan/0212.html 
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Nov/0171.html 
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2003Jan/0418.html 

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 
17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3 
Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 
mailto:pcotton@microsoft.com

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: February 6, 2003 5:08 PM
> To: Henry S. Thompson
> Cc: richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [xmlProfiles-29] TAG recommendation for work on subset of
XML
> 1.1
> 
> 
> Henry Thompson writes:
> 
> >> I made the proposal in the form I did to catch
> >> all and only what I understood the SOAP
> >> requirements to be, but I suspect you're
> >> right that just skipping the whole thing is better.
> 
> (speaking only for myself, not officially for the XMLP WG)
> 
> As far as I know, SOAP hasn't expressed a requirement for anything.
SOAP
> is an application of XML.  It so happens that a legal implementation
of
> SOAP will never put a DOCTYPE or a PI into a SOAP message.  It also
won't
> put in an <animal:elephant> tag as a child of the <soap:envelope>;
neither
> is allowed by SOAP.   As far as I'm concerned neither restriction
directly
> represents or suggests a requirement for anything to be included in
future
> XML specifications.
> 
> SOAP protocol bindings can use any representation they like as a wire
> format.  Some of those may not even have representations that could
> correspond to a DOCTYPE, implying that there is no way a receiver
could
> see one at all.  The interesting case, of course, is when the binding
> chooses to use an XML 1.x serialization, which is what the supplied
HTTP
> implementation does.   In that case, you could imagine a  buggy sender
> managing to transmit what is an otherwise legal SOAP message with a
> DOCTYPE or PI.  With the exception of one small exception that's
allowed
> only for performance, receivers receiving such representations must
> reflect errors >at the SOAP level<.  It's not an XML error, it's a
SOAP
> error.  Same as if an <animal:elephant> shows up.
> 
> So, nothing in this includes a "SOAP requirement" as far as I know.
Some
> who have seen these design decisions have come to their own
conclusions
> that a subset defined at the XML level would be better.  I'm not
> completely convinced, but that's what the TAG has quite appropriately
> suggested that the XML Activity, core group and/or Advisory Committee
> consider per the usual W3C process.   I'm glad to see that analysis
> starting, and I'm curious whether a subset, a conformance level, a new
> version of XML (deprecating the featues in question) or doing nothing
will
> prove on balance to be the best course.  Right now, I don't feel that
I
> know the answer, but I'm quite convinced that SOAP itself has no
> "requirement" in this area.  Thanks!
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 6 February 2003 18:46:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:16 GMT