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

RE: [R3xx] Requirements Section "4.2 Simplicity and Stability" -- com parison with SOAP1.1.

From: David Ezell <David_E3@Verifone.Com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:32:58 -0500
Message-ID: <472E220BA79DD11186340060B06B38D9033AD2AC@tpantmail1.ssr.hp.com>
To: "'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'" <frystyk@microsoft.com>
Cc: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
On Wed 1/31/2001 1:06 PM -0500 Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> David Ezell wrote:
>> === R302
>> SOAP1.1 defines a vocabulary with certain types of extensibility.  XML
>> Protocol requirements declare a need for extensibility which supports
>> "decentralized extensibility without prior agreement".  It's not clear
>> whether the types of extensiblity in SOAP are adequate for 
>> this requirement.
>I would suggest that the key to decentralized extensibility is a
>combination of using XML namespaces as well as the optional/mandatory
>flags that one can stick on SOAP headers. It is decentralized in the
>sense that there need not be central control of a feature in order to
>introduce it and any feature can force the failure of a message by
>indicating that it must be understood.

So, our comment here is that "it's not clear" that the right kind of
extensibility exists in SOAP1.1.  Obviously, namespaces give a great
deal of autonomy to contained document elements.  But what if the
envelope itself (I'm dipping down into design here) needs to be
extended?  (Granted, two applications, by prior agreement, could
simply disregard the DTD or Schema defining the envelope without
asking a central authority :-)  but I'm not sure that's what you

Best regards,
David Ezell
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2001 10:33:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:11 UTC