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

email for proposed closing of issue #21

From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 16:12:30 -0500
Message-ID: <3C0E8DBE.2000004@sun.com>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Joe Lapp - wherever you are...,

I am responding on behalf of the XMLP WG regarding
your issue #21 [1] which cites your email [2] regarding
"Issues with Packaging Application Payloads".

Specifically, we'd like to be able to close this issue
citing this response with your approval.

The SOAP1.2 parts 1 and 2 specifications have been (re)defined
in terms of the XML Infoset representation of a SOAP
message. This change from the v1.1 spec is significant
because it provides a separation from the XML 1.0 serialization
of a SOAP message. The serialization of a SOAP message
is now manifested as part of the binding to an underlying
protocol, which gets to specify the manner by which the
serialization of the XML Infoset representation of a message
is to be handled.

This has relevance to your issue in the following manner.

First that the serialization need not necessarily be
as an XML 1.0 document. Other serializations are made
possible, although the SOAP1.2 specifications provide
as normative only the XML 1.0 serialization cited in the
HTTP binding for SOAP.

Secondly, with regards to the well-formedness aspect of
a SOAP envelope with application data is based on a statement
made in the XML Infoset specification [3]:

	"An XML document has an information set if it is
	well-formed and satisfies the namespace constraints
	described below. There is no requirement for an XML
	document to be valid in order to have an information set."

This statement implies that a SOAP message serialized to/from
an XML Infoset representation from/to an XML 1.0 representation
will be a well-formed XML document, including any application data.
This should address your concerns regarding the potential
non-well-formedness of any application data within the SOAP
envelope. Of course, it is always possible that a poorly
crafted SOAP implementation could send a non-wellformed message, but
that could apply to any aspect of the SOAP envelope, not just
application data. However, it is not the responsibility of the
WG to address improper implementation. Messages which cannot
be processed cannot be processed.

Finally, the WG has agreed to cite (as a non-normative
reference) the SOAP Messages with Attachments Note [4]
as an example of other possible bindings for SOAP. In
addition, the WG Chair has committed to inclusion
in the re-charter of the XMLP WG a top-level deliverable
that addresses the handling of binary data and/or
"attachments" as the first order of business for the
WG following the completion of the SOAP1.2 specification.

Cheers,

Chris

[1]http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x21
[2]http://discuss.develop.com/archives/wa.exe?A2=ind0008&L=soap&F=&S=&P=41789
[3]http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP-attachments
[4]http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/PR-xml-infoset-20010810/
Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2001 16:16:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 22:28:13 UTC