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

RE: issue 78

From: Frank DeRose <frankd@tibco.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:58:53 -0700
To: "Doug Davis" <dug@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFELJFDBDMKCBMENENFOCEGCDOAA.frankd@tibco.com>
> I agree that vague areas of the spec should be cleared up.
> In this case though, there are lots of things that are not part
> of the core spec.   Digital Signature isn't part of the core spec
> but is allowable, right?  I see boxcarring as the same type
> of thing in that the spec isn't going to talk about it (except
> to say it isn't going to talk about it  8-)  but that doesn't mean
> it can't be done - they're just not going to tell us how to do
> it.  You're equating "not part of the core spec" with "not
> allowed" and I don't think they're the same thing. When the
> spec disallows something a "MUST NOT" is used.
> -Dug

Fair enough. Let me try again.

The WG needs to decide between the following two positions:

P1: In an RPC message, the Body MUST contain one and only one serialization
root.
P2: In an RPC message, the Body MUST contain at least one serialization root
and MAY contain more.

P1 would still allow boxcarring, but only through a single serialization
root. For example, each parameter in your request element could itself be a
request element; and each parameter in your response element could itself be
a response or Fault element (begging the question, of course, of whether a
Fault element can appear somewhere other than as an immediate child of the
Body). P2 would allow boxcarring through multiple serialization roots. That
is, each request/response/Fault element would be a direct child of the Body.

The spec should be changed to state explicitly which position is mandated.
If the WG decides to mandate P2, then my proposed rewriting of Section 7.1
obviously won't do. So, here are two new proposed rewritings, corresponding
to P1 and P2:

Proposed rewriting that corresponds to P1 (essentially the same as
<Version2OfProposedRewriteOfSection71> from [1]):
<FranksVersion3OfSection71>
The Body of a SOAP RPC message MUST contain one and only one serialization
root. In the case of a request message, this root is the request element. In
the case of a response message, this root is EITHER a response element OR a
Fault element.

In the case of an RPC with a void return type and no [out] or [in,out]
parameters, the response element MUST be empty.
</FranksVersion3OfSection71>

Proposed rewriting that corresponds to P2:
<FranksVersion4OfSection71>
The Body of a SOAP RPC message MUST contain one serialization root and MAY
contain more. In the case of a request message, each root is a request
element. In the case of a response message, each root is EITHER a response
element OR a
Fault element.

In the case of an RPC with a void return type and no [out] or [in,out]
parameters, the response element MUST be empty.
</FranksVersion4OfSection71>

It should be obvious by now that personally I would prefer
<FranksVersion3OfSection71>.

If you've got suggested rewrites, please lay your ass on the line. ;>) Just
identify your rewrite (like <FranksVersion3OfSection71>), so we can refer to
it easily.

F

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Jun/0160.html
Received on Friday, 15 June 2001 23:59:00 GMT

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