W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > June 2004

review of LC drafts of XMLP specs

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.at>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:57:06 +0200
To: WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1087577826.3043.85.camel@Kalb>

Hi, 

I just sent in my comments on the XMLP LC specs to the XMLP WG, see
[1-6]. Most of them were editorial or not pertaining to WS-Description.
Here's what we should probably discuss in WS-Desc WG and possibly
generate a formal comment from our group to XMLP.

1) the Resource Representation header [7] is not a SOAP module and
therefore does not have a formal name by which it can be referred (other
than the element qname). Is the qname sufficient for us or would we like
a URI to be able to refer that particular piece of functionality from
WSDL?

2) Section 4.3.1 in MTOM [8] contains an editor's note that we could
have something to say on (I personally don't):

>>The binding framework of the SOAP recommendation provides that "the
minimum responsibility of a binding in transmitting a message is to
specify the means by which the SOAP message Infoset is transferred to
and reconstituted by the binding at the receiving SOAP node and to
specify the manner in which the transmission of the envelope is effected
using the facilities of the underlying protocol." (see [SOAP Part 1] 4.2
Binding Framework). Although illegal as input to XOP encoding, elements
named xop:Include are legal in SOAP Infosets, and may indeed be useful
in certain circumstances (perhaps in sending an error report on or
otherwise quoting a fragment of a XOP Infoset). During preparation of
this MTOM specification some commentators noted that the second option
provided above (i.e., to generate an error) sets the potentially
unfortunate precedent of allowing particular bindings to decline to send
otherwise legal SOAP messages. Accordingly, the option to generate a
binding-dependent fault is included in this draft provisionally, and the
XML Protocols Workgroup solicits feedback on the advisability of
retaining this option in the final Recommendation.<<

Do we like the idea that a SOAP binding can reject some Envelope
infosets? Do we dislike it? Neither?

I believe these two to be the only potential issues for consideration in
WS-Description WG.

Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Ph.D. researcher
                   Digital Enterprise Research Institute
                   http://www.deri.at/

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2004Jun/0012.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2004Jun/0013.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2004Jun/0014.html
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2004Jun/0015.html
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2004Jun/0016.html
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2004Jun/0017.html
[7] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-soap12-rep-20040608/
[8] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-soap12-mtom-20040608/#httpof-sending
Received on Friday, 18 June 2004 13:12:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:31 GMT