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

RE: Proposed Clarification for Issues 4 and 23

From: Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 11:48:48 -0700
Message-ID: <C3729BBB6099B344834634EC67DE4AE102623A42@red-msg-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I agree with the sentiment, but fear that this is stated backwardsly, as
though the processor first recognizes Envelope, Body etc and then
notices that they have been improperly qualified.  In fact, if not
qualified properly, they would not be those elements.  

The present SOAP/XMLP specification allows messages to have either
qualified or unqualified elements and attributes.  But sending elements
qualified to a different namespace would be sending a non-SOAP/XMLP
message, e.g. equivalent to sending HTML content within a HTTP header
claiming that the content is a SOAP message.  Do we require returning a
SOAP/XMLP fault under such circumstances?

The present SOAP 1.1 wording reads:

"A SOAP application SHOULD include the proper SOAP namespace on all
elements and attributes defined by SOAP in messages that it generates. A
SOAP application MUST be able to process SOAP namespaces in messages
that it receives. It MUST discard messages that have incorrect
namespaces (see section 4.4) and it MAY process SOAP messages without
SOAP namespaces as though they had the correct SOAP namespaces."

The smallest change that I see using Noah's suggestion is 

"A SOAP/XMLP application SHOULD namespace-qualify all elements and
attributes defined by SOAP/XMLP in messages that it generates. A SOAP
application MUST be able to process namespace qualification in messages
that it receives. It MAY process SOAP messages which are otherwise
schema-valid in all respects excepting that some elements or attributes
that are defined to be in a SOAP/XMLP namespace are unqualified. It MUST
discard messages that are not SOAP/XMLP messages by these rules (see
section 4.4)."

Obviously, we can debate whether it is preferred to keep or remove the
allowance for unqualified elements and attributes.  E.g. should it
instead say:

"A SOAP/XMLP application MUST namespace-qualify all elements and
attributes defined by SOAP/XMLP in messages that it generates. A SOAP
application MUST be able to process namespace qualification in messages
that it receives. It MUST discard messages that are not SOAP/XMLP
messages by these rules (see section 4.4)."


-----Original Message-----
From: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com [mailto:Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 11:33 PM
To: Marc Hadley
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject: Re: Proposed Clarification for Issues 4 and 23


How about using the term "qualify" rather than include.  That makes
clear 
(to those few who read the namespaces rec carefully) that the usual 
mechanisms of default namespaces, etc. can be used to achieve the 
qualification.  I don't thing that "including" a namespace has any
formal 
definition.:


"A XMLP/SOAP processor SHOULD >>qualify with the 
proper XMLP/SOAP namespace all
all elements and attributes defined by XMLP/SOAP<< in messages that it
generates. A XMLP/SOAP processor MUST be able to process >>properaly
namespace qualified XMLP/SOAP elements and attributes<< in messages that

it receives 
and it MAY process XMLP/SOAP >>elements and attributes<< 
without XMLP/SOAP namespaces as though they had the correct XMLP/SOAP
namespaces. It MUST generate a fault (see section 4.4) on receipt of
messages using >>SOAP/XMLP-defined elements and attributes<< that have
incorrect namespaces."

What do you think?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2001 14:49:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:01 GMT