W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > November 2002

RE: Possible new LC issue: Can SOAP header blocks exist outside SOAP modules?

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 14:42:25 -0800
Message-ID: <68B95AA1648D1840AB0083CC63E57AD6097C6876@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Dear XMLP Comments" <xmlp-comments@w3.org>, "XMLP Public" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Cc: "WSD Public" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

I absolutely believe that it should be possible to have SOAP header blocks independent of SOAP modules. One reason is that we have no mechanism for enforcing such a requirement. FWIW, SOAP 1.2 in fact defines two SOAP header blocks (the env:NotUnderstood and the env:VersionMismatch) and they are not part of any SOAP module.
 
Regarding whether features must have a URI, given that we have no absolute definition of what a feature is in general (is "security" a feature? Is "HTTP Conneg" a feature? Is the HTTP 415 status code a feature?), it doesn't seem possible to require people to name such things. What I think we *can* say is that *if* one wants to expose something as a feature then one follows the guidelines for features in the SOAP 1.2 spec.
 
Similarly, for modules I think we can say that *if* one wants to expose something as a module then one follows the guidelines for modules in the SOAP 1.2 spec.
 
PS: I am traveling this week so won't be much on email :(
 
Henrik
 
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Nov/0008.html
 
________________________________

From:	 Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr]	
Sent:	 Thu 14-Nov-02 0:46	
To:	 Dear XMLP Comments; XMLP Public	
Cc:	 WSD Public	
Subject:	 Possible new LC issue: Can SOAP header blocks exist outside SOAP modules?	
 	


Dear all,

An interesting question/issue has come up during yesterday's WSD
face-to-face: can SOAP 1.2 header blocks exist independently from
SOAP 1.2 modules? I.e. can you define a new header block without
writing down on paper the corresponding module specification
*and* without assigning a new module URI?

I think the spec is at best unclear on this topic. Beyond
clarification, the real question is: as a WG, how do we feel
about this issue? Since we have taken all the trouble of
describing modules in a normative fashion, probably for a good
reason, do we still want allow "independent" header blocks, or do
we think they should be discouraged?

I am cc'eing ws-desc since the WSD WG is interested in this
topic, as part of its work of describing SOAP features in WSDL
1.2. However, I am not raising this issue on behalf of the WSD WG
(although the WSD might raise this issue itself in the future).

Please remove xmlp-comments from any further discussion.

Cheers,

Jean-Jacques.
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 17:42:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:22 GMT