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

RPCTF: Relationship of Sections 5 and 7 in SOAP 1.2

From: Frank DeRose <frankd@tibco.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 11:46:38 -0700
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
The RPC Task Force (RPCTF) would like to receive input on the question of
the relationship between Sections 5 and 7 in the SOAP 1.2 spec.

Section 7 states:

"Although it is anticipated that this representation is likely to be used in
combination with the encoding style defined in section 5, other
representations are possible. The SOAP encodingStyle attribute (see section
4.3.2) can be used to indicate the encoding style of the RPC invocation
and/or the response using the representation described in this section.
An RPC invocation is modeled as a struct.
As noted above, RPC invocation ... structs can be encoded according to the
rules in section 5, or other encodings can be specified using the
encodingStyle attribute (see section 4.1.1)."

There appears to be a contradiction here. Section 7 states that an "RPC
invocation is modeled as a struct." The term "struct" is defined in Section
5 as part of the default encoding. How can the term "struct" remain defined
if an encoding style other than the default is used? The same argument
applies to the term "accessor." Also, Section 5.6 seems to anticipate that
the "root" attribute in the default encoding will be used to distinguish a
request (or response) element from multi-ref elements inside an RPC body
(see issue 78). How can this distinction be made if a different encoding
style is used (and the "root attribute becomes undefined).

So, the RPCTF needs to answer questions like:

-- Does Section 7 depend on Section 5?
-- Is it possible (how) to use the RPC representation in Section 7 together
with an encoding style other than the one defined in Section 5?
-- If the RPC convention defined in Section 7 and the default encoding style
defined in Section 5 cannot vary independently, then, does a value of the
encodingStyle attribute other than "http://www.w3.org/2001/06/soap-encoding"
imply a different RPC representation?
-- If Section 5 is optional and Section 7 depends on Section 5, is Section 7
-- Does the text of Section 7 need to be rewritten? If so, how?

The RPCTF would like people's input on these questions.

Frank DeRose
TIBCO Software Inc.
3165 Porter Dr
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650-846-5570 (vox)
650-846-1267 (fax)
Received on Monday, 23 July 2001 14:46:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:14 UTC