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

Issues with SOAP 1.2 part 1 Editors Draft

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 15:41:15 +0100
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F19262D@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
[Moving to xml-dist-app]

I'd like to raise the four comments below as issues against the current SOAP
1.2 Pt 1 editiors draft [1].


Stuart Williams
[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/08/29/soap12-part1.html

-----Original Message-----
From: Williams, Stuart 
Sent: 18 September 2001 11:25
To: 'Jean-Jacques Moreau'
Cc: w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org; Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; Marc Hadley;
Martin Gudgin
Subject: Substantive Comments on part 1 (Was RE: Comments on Part 1)

Hi Jean-Jacques,

Thanks for responding to the editorials. I guess that leaves the following 4
more substantive comments needing further discussion.




2.3 Targeting of SOAP Header Blocks: [Technical]
	There is an assumption that with respect to a given message an SOAP
Node is able to determine whether it plays the role of the default/anonymous
actor. For other actors there is an explicit actor URI string on which to
make the determination of whether you are that actor. WRT to the
default/anon actor... there is *no* discussion of the basis on which a SOAP
Node determines that it plays role of default/anon actor with resect to a
given received message.

	It seems to me at the moment that this determination is currently
(in the HTTP context) based on information *outside* the message.


4.3 SOAP Body [Technical]
	"Each SOAP body block element information item:
		MAY be namespace qualified
		MAY have an encodingStyle attribute information item"

	I think that the first of these MAY's should be a MUST. 4.2 states
that Header block element info items *MUST* be namespace qualified. Also,
4.3.1 describes the semantic relationship between bodies and headers which
is to say that bodies are semantically equivalent to headers targetted at
the default/anon actor. If that is indeed the case the need for NS
qualification on bodies arises from this semantic equivalence.


4.4.1 SOAP Fault Codes: [Editorial/Technical]
	'..."http://www.w3.org/2001/06/soap-envelope." Use of this namespace
is recommended (but not required) in the specification of methods defined
outside the present specification."

	Two things: 
		1)	the use of the word 'method' seems to have 
			carried through probably from SOAP 1.0 and 
			is tied to the notion of faults arising from
			method/RPC invocations.

		2)	I think that the RPC TF have gone against the
			(not required )recommentation in defining a new
			namespace for rpc related faults. Does this remain
			our recommendation?


4.4.1 SOAP Fault Codes: [Editorial/Technical]
	Table speaks of 'Client' faults and 'Server' faults. I think that
this is the only place where the notion of 'Client' and 'Server' arise.
Concepts of 'Client' and 'Server' are not developed anywhere in the

	It seems to me that 'Client' is more akin to 'Sender' and 'Server'
is more akin to 'Recipient'. Regardless, I'm not sure personnally that
'Client' and 'Server' are appropriate distinctions to make in a generic SOAP
messaging framework.


Received on Thursday, 20 September 2001 10:57:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:15 UTC