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

Re: discarding incorrect namespaces

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 23:22:10 -0700
To: XML Distributed Applications List <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20010821232207.B1287@mnot.net>

On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 03:29:00PM -0400, Hugo Haas wrote:
> 
> It's interesting, because the current the current text[1] refers to
> the section of SOAP faults as a reference to "discard":

yeah, saw that too. There is some internal logic to it, but it's a
bit obtuse.


> Maybe the spec should say:
> 
>   It MUST not process messages that have incorrect namespace
>   information (see 4.1.2 Envelope Versioning Model).

I like it. I *think* this is saying;
  - if you don't recognise the envelope namespace, generate a Fault 
    (as per 4.1.2)
  - if you don't recognise the serialisation namespace, etc. (for
    example if we define URIs for bindings and/or RPC), stop
    processing.

If we go down that path, we may define faults for the other
conditions.


> > Also, 'unsupported' seems more appropriate than 'incorrect'. Same
> > language in 4.4.1.
> 
> 'incorrect' looks good to me: in the context of the SOAP Version 1.2
> specification, only one namespace URI is recognized and considered
> correct for the envelope (<http://www.w3.org/2001/06/soap-envelope> as
> currently in the draft).

From the processor's point of view, there can be a number of possible
envelope URIs; right now, we have 1.1 and 1.2; who knows what the
future will bring. No worries, it's a small point.


> > Finally, considering our versioning model, does it make sense to
> > upgrade
> > 
> > "A SOAP application SHOULD include the proper SOAP namespace on all
> > elements and attributes defined by SOAP in messages that it
> > generates."
> > 
> > to MUST, and strike
> > 
> > "... MAY process SOAP messages without SOAP namespaces as though they had
> > the correct SOAP namespaces."
> > 
> > This is in the context of all SOAP namespaces, not just the envelope,
> > but it seems prudent to clarify in some fashion.
> 
> I agree with you, but I seem to remember some earlier discussion
> during which we decided to allow this; I can't remember when and why
> though, so it might just be the fruit of my imagination.

Anyone who can prove or disprove the fruit of Hugo's imagination,
please speak up ;)


-- 
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/
 
Received on Wednesday, 22 August 2001 02:22:11 GMT

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