W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > July 2002

RE: Comments on SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 15:54:24 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D082CCD22@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

I don't have a big problem having a SOAP fault subcode for SOAP role
URIs being too long but I would like to clarify that the text in SOAP
1.2 is qualified on the notion that a SOAP node MUST be able to handle
any URIs that it publishes and I think it is reasonable to say that a
role URI is "published" by a SOAP node. This MAY be more than 2k
characters (not bytes). Other length limitations may apply to other URIs
carried in SOAP, this is outside the scope of SOAP itself.


>5) Comment: Length of URIs.
>I remember a somewhat long discussion on xml-dist-app about that and
>am still unsure about what we should say, but the following statement
>struck me[8]:
>|   SOAP does not place any a priori limit on the length of a URI. Any
>|   SOAP node MUST be able to handle the length of any URI that it
>|   publishes and both SOAP senders and SOAP receivers SHOULD 
>be able to
>|   deal with URIs of at least 2048 characters in length.
>Even though the URI specification doesn't specify any limit on the
>length of a URI, the HTTP spec does provide a URI too long error
>2kB is identified here as a reasonable value to be able to handle.
>This seems to be an architectural issue, a Web services one as well as
>a Web one. I am afraid that such a statement will have a big impact on
>software designed.
>I think that I would be more comfortable by saying that software
>should be able to handle URIs of arbitrary length, and that a
>2kB-length is seen _in SOAP's context_ as a minimum value to support.
Received on Monday, 1 July 2002 18:55:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:57 UTC