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

Comments on issue 101

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 16:00:17 -0500
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <20011030160017.I18725@jibboom.w3.org>
Hi.

During last week's telcon that I couldn't attend unfortunately, Yves
mentioned that I was reluctant to close issue 101.

I am summarizing here the reasons. Full details are available from the
issues list[1].

Resolving issue 101 means that we claim that we have clarified the
difference between body and header. My reading of sections 2.5 and
4.3.1 seems to show that there is an inconsistency the two
explanations[4]:

  Therefore, I think that the difference between header blocks and
  body blocks described in section 4.3.1[2] is incomplete. I think
  that the current text in section 2.5 suggests that blocks in the
  Body element are put there by the initial sender, to the attention
  of the ultimate receiver, and that they form a fixed set until the
  message reaches the final destination. I think that we should add
  some text to reflect this.

  It seems to me that blocks in the Body can only be added when the
  message is first built, and consumed by the ultimate receiver.

This is why Doug calls a set of blocks in under the Body element _the_
SOAP Body block instead of SOAP Body blocks (I think).

Therefore, it seems to me that the header/body distinction in the spec
isn't crystal clear yet, and this is why I wasn't sure we could close
101 yet. Noah (the originator) replied[3]:

  My interpretation was that, from [1]:

  "The relationship between a SOAP body block and a SOAP header block is as
  follows: a SOAP body block is semantically equivalent to a SOAP header
  block targeted at the default actor and with a SOAP mustUnderstand
  attribute information item with a value of true."

  which makes clear that any rule applying to header blocks also applies to
  body blocks.  I do agree that we could be clearer, but I believe the
  intention has always been to treat the two symmetrically.

which suggests that more work might be necessary.

Thanks,

Hugo

  1. http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x101
  3. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Oct/0220.html
  4. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Oct/0213.html
-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/ - tel:+1-617-452-2092
Received on Tuesday, 30 October 2001 16:00:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:04 GMT