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

Re: Issue 192 & R803

From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 10:20:03 -0500
Message-ID: <3CAB1DA3.8010800@sun.com>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
+1

Marc Hadley wrote:

> 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
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2002 10:21:05 GMT

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