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

RE: Issue with soap-rpc:result

From: Don Box <dbox@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 17:11:47 -0800
Message-ID: <CFC4F26947496E4092489B24256149580414C007@svc-msg-02.northamerica.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <soap@zaks.demon.co.uk>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 3:31 PM
> To: soap@zaks.demon.co.uk
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue with soap-rpc:result
> FWIW, RPC in SOAP 1.1 technically depends on the data model that's 
> provided by the encoding.  It models arguments as a struct [1], which 
> is a concept that only exists in the encoding.  This approach was 
> designed, in part, to leave the door open to other encodings that 
> would also model structs, but as with so much in SOAP 1.1 the spec is 
> quite broad in its language, and I think you can interpret it as 
> either requiring the chapter 5 encoding, or just requiring some 
> encoding that models "structs".
> We surely need a less ambiguous presentation in SOAP 1.2.  Whether to 
> allow completely unencoded (E.g. modeled by XML schema or with no 
> schema, rather than being a graph with structs, etc.) I am less sure.

Since SOAP/1.2 explicitly relies on XML Schema, I would advocate making
faults based solely on XML Schema (e.g., literal). This is especially
important since the fault itself may be indicating that an unknown
encoding was used!

Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2002 20:12:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:18 UTC