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

Re: Issue #12 proposed resolution

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 20:49:02 -0700
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@Sun.COM>, "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20010930204857.D1343@mnot.net>

On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 11:45:34PM -0400, Mark Baker wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 10:44:30PM -0400, Mark Baker wrote:
> > > > a) Disallow the use of 3xx HTTP redirection, and rely on a SOAP
> > > >    Module, Fault or similar to enable redirection.
> > > > 
> > > > b) Carefully craft wording to the effect that SOAP clients
> > > >    should assume user confirmation.
> > > > 
> > > > In either case, we probably do need explanatory language in
> > > > the spec. I'm slightly in favour of 'a' at this point.
> > > 
> > > Or c) expose resource redirection via SOAP.  I think this has
> > > merit, as resource redirection is applicable with other
> > > application protocols, even if they currently have no notion of
> > > it.  For example, SMTP could be extended with SOAP+redirection
> > > to support notifying clients of the change of somebody's email
> > > address (if known).
> > 
> > How is that different from 'a'?
> 
> a) is wordsmithing, while c) requires extending SOAP to support
> redirection, likely with a new fault code.
> 
> Practically though, since there's not enough time to consider the
> implications of redirection, we'll probably end up with;
> 
> d) wordsmith enough now to leave the door open for c) at a later
> date.

OK. I meant "come up with a Fault or Module" by 'a', or possibly just
leave the door open. Sounds like we're on the same track. 


> > > I'd suggest simpler wording though;
> > > 
> > > "A SOAP application MUST NOT use the HTTP response status code
> > > to infer the presence or absence of a SOAP response."
> > > 
> > > This impacts my proposed text from my last message, hopefully
> > > in an obvious way.
> > 
> > I'd change that to '...presence or substance of a SOAP envelope". 
> 
> Not "absence"?  If we're going for completeness here, I think we
> need to say "presence or absence".  I'm not sure what "substance"
> refers to.

Using 'presence' implies 'absence'. 'substance' is important, because
someone might infer the Fault type, presence of a Fault as opposed to
the presence of a SOAP Envelope, etc.

The editors can probably step in here... ;)

Cheers,


-- 
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/
 
Received on Sunday, 30 September 2001 23:49:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:03 GMT