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

New Issue from F2F: Handling badly formed SOAP Messages.

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 10:47:54 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F1929E1@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
During the F2F I was actioned to raise an Issue with respect to the first
Ednote in SOAP 1.2 Part 2 section 7.4.1.2.1, part of the HTTP binding [1].

The ednote states:
<quote>
As described this model tends to hide a malformed message from the local
SOAP Node and handle the malformation in the binding - basically because it
would not be possible to instantiate the CurrentMessage to pass up for
processing. An alternate formulation might be to allow CurrentMessage to
carry badly formed messages and let the SOAP processor/node deal with it. As
presented here we can have define the bindings behaviour with respect to
particular failures. 
</quote>

The issue that the ednote raises is two fold:

1) From a descriptive point of view where do we place the responsibility to
describe behaviour associated with the receipt of poorly formed SOAP
messages? Malformations might include: XML that is not-well formed;
Unsupported envelope version; some unsupported message encapsulation (eg
MIME/DIME etc).

2) From a more practical point-of-view, is it right that a binding
implementation 'hide' the receipt of such 'broken' messages from the SOAP
processor/node. This may be more moot, because it probably makes
inappropriate assumptions about the structure of an implementation.

The WG felt that this topic warranted further discussion.

Regards

Stuart Williams
[1]
http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part2.html#http-respbindrecei
ve
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2002 05:48:07 GMT

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