W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2002

Re: Issue 192 & R803

From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 15:47:02 +0100
Message-ID: <3CAB15E6.7050103@sun.com>
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
CC: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Sorry for the slow response, catching up on email slowly.

I think Noah has identified an inconsistency here and we should open a 
new issue to make sure we address it.

Marc.

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

> Chris Ferris writes:
> 
> 
>>>the .../ultimateReceiver role MUST be capable
>>>of "correctly processing" the contents of the 
>>>SOAP Body EII which I interpret as meaning, 
>>>if the child of the SOAP Body EII is a SOAP
>>>Fault EII, it is a fault, and I process it 
>>>as such unless there is some SOAP Header 
>>>block telling me otherwise. That is the SOAP
>>>processing model as I understand it.
>>>
> 
> That was true, but not any more I'm afraid.  The latest editors' draft 
> says with respect to body processing [1]:
> 
> "An ultimate SOAP receiver MUST correctly process the immediate children 
> of the SOAP body (see 5.3 SOAP Body). However, Part 1 of this 
> specification (this document) mandates no particular structure or 
> interpretation of these elements, and provides no standard means for 
> specifying the processing to be done."
> 
> We introduced this formulation during the great debate over body 
> interpretation.  In the non-fault case, I think I am happy with it.  I 
> think it also implies that ascribing semantics to a body containing a 
> fault is optional (or, conversely, you might view the first and second 
> sentences as contradictory in this respect.)
> 
> In the case of faults, first of all, it contradicts the rest of the 
> specification in claiming that we mandate no structure for the body.  I 
> suspect we should open an issue at least on that.  My guess is that (with 
> apologies in advance to Mark Baker) many of us had assumed that we wanted 
> to mandate not just the structure, but also the interpretation in the case 
> that a fault was received.  Maybe the issue should be expanded to include 
> that question as well, though knowing Mark's views, it may not be easy to 
> achieve quick consensus on a resolution.
> 
> 
> [1] 
> http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part1.html#structinterpbodies
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2002 09:47:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:09 GMT