W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > October 2003

Re: Message adressing, intermediaries, and their description

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2003 08:54:48 +0200
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20031018065448.GA16935@w3.org>
* Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> [2003-10-17 23:20-0400]
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 09:38:22AM -0400, Hugo Haas wrote:
> > Mismatch between our document and SOAP 1.2:
> > 
> > - Our documents says that a message envelope contains address
> >   information to deliver the message.
> 
> Do you have a reference?  I can't find it.
> 
> Does it say SOAP envelope, or "message envelope"?  Because I'd agree
> with the latter, but disagree with the former.

Ha! You're right, it doesn't say it anymore (compare [2] with [3]).  I
am confused, as I there wasn't any discussion that I have seen after
[3].

> > - A SOAP message, and therefore a SOAP envelope, does not contain such
> >   information. It assumes that this information is known, either out
> >   of band, or using an extension.
> 
> I disagree, but probably because we have different interpretations of
> the definition of a "SOAP message" (you might recall some of the
> discussion[1] on xml-dist-app earlier this year).  The definition reads;
> 
> "The basic unit of communication between SOAP nodes."
> 
> Personally, I believe this suffices because what is communicated between
> any two SOAP nodes is more than a SOAP envelope, it's also the envelope
> of the underlying protocol(s).  As an example, the HTTP URI to which a
> SOAP message is POSTed is part of the unit of communication.  But as
> Noah points out in his initial message, there's at least one use of the
> term of the spec that appears inconsistent with this interpretation.
> 
>  [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2003Feb/thread.html#5

I see. I should have left out "A SOAP message, and therefore", which
still shows, or showed at least, the mismatch.

I believe that my last point (role vs. address) is still valid though,
and that the conclusion still holds.

Regards,

Hugo

  2. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/arch/wsa/wd-wsa-arch-review2.html?rev=1.72&content-type=text/html;%20charset=iso-8859-1#envelope
  3. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Sep/0051.html
-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/

Received on Saturday, 18 October 2003 02:54:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:23 GMT