W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > August 2001

Re: proposed wording to address attributes

From: Herve Ruellan <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 15:12:48 +0200
Message-ID: <3B6951D0.7050304@crf.canon.fr>
To: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org
christopher ferris wrote:

> ...

> 
> A SOAP message MUST NOT impose any XML schema processing (assessment and 
> validation) requirement on the part of any receiving SOAP node. 
> Therefore, SOAP REQUIRES that all Attribute Information Items, whether 
> specified in this specification or whether they belong to a foreign 
> namespace be carried in the serialized SOAP envelope.
>

 > ...

Chris,

I'm a bit unconfortable with your second sentence. It may induce that
you must put in your SOAP message every Attribute Information Items you
know about, whether your need them or not.

For this reason I would make the difference between two cases when
defining an Attribute Information Item (in the SOAP spec or outside):

1. The Attribute Information Item is not present.
This absence has a meaning for the receiver and this meaning may be the
same as if the Attribute Information Item was present with a particular
value.

2. The Attribute Information Item is present.
In this case, the meaning of this Attribute Information Item depends on
its value.


For example, the absence of the mustUnderstand attribute has the same 

meaning as its presence with the false value.

But if I define a encryptionMode attribute, the absence of this attribute

means that the SOAP message is not encrypted whereas its presence means 

that the SOAP message is encrypted and gives the type of encryption used.

Hervé.
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2001 09:14:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:03 GMT