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

RE: Problem with resolution of Issue 221

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 11:15:47 -0400
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF766CACBB.4AE23A25-ON85256C21.0052B758@lotus.com>

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen writes:

>> I was under the impression that the purpose 
>> of this thread was to clarify the apparent 
>> contradiction of the documented resolution 
>> to issue 221 which was why it was raised 
>> again on this list.

Yes, but I think that ambiguity applies, at worst, to the special case of 
a sender that is an intermediary.  Perhaps erroneously, I read your note 
as suggesting that we open the possibility of PIs being legal in the 
content of application data (I.e. head blocks and body element children.) 
That may be a reasonable technical suggestion, but I think the WG clearly 
signalled at the F2F that it doesn't want to go there.  So, I think we 
should take a moderately narrow view of where the ambiguity is, and 
suggest to the WG a simple resolution that applies to intermediaries.  I 
have offered one such proposed resolution at [1]. which is:

"Except in the special case of intermediaries (see below), envelopes 
transmitted by SOAP senders MUST NOT contain PIs.

Receivers (including intermediaries)  receiving an envelope with a PI 
SHOULD fault with a XXXX fault.  However, in the case where performance 
considerations make it impractical for an intermediary to detect PIs in a 
message to be relayed, such intermediaries MAY leave the PIs unchanged in 
the relayed message."

I think this is very much in the spirit of the WG's F2F decision, though I 
would formally signal the business about intermediaries on the next 
telcon, as I think it goes a bit beyond editorial.  I don't think I've 
heard anyone object to this proposed resolution, though such an objection 
might be implied in your notes, Henrik.  How can we move from where we are 
to a final resolution.

(If we have one, I'll be glad to enter it into the text and close the 
issue.)

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Aug/0034.html

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------





        "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
        Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
        08/25/2002 05:47 PM
 
                 To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
                 cc: <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, 
<xml-dist-app@w3.org>
                 Subject: RE: Problem with resolution of Issue 221




I was under the impression that the purpose of this thread was to
clarify the apparent contradiction of the documented resolution to issue
221 which was why it was raised again on this list.

I completely agree that this is beyond the scope of the editors, which
is why I responded to the discussion. Nothing has happened to the
document at this point in time.

As I was not at the recent f2f, I was merely referring to a related
resolution that the WG as a whole decided some time ago and which is
inconsistent with aspects of the discussion that has happened regarding
issue 221. Maybe I am missing something but I haven't seen this
contradiction addressed in the thread other than in the mail I sent out
which explicitly talks about the forwarding case of PIIIs.

Henrik
Received on Monday, 26 August 2002 11:18:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:11 GMT