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

Issue 82 : Proposed resolution

From: Don Mullen <donmullen@tibco.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:14:05 -0500
Message-ID: <339902DC0E58D411986A00B0D03D84320130F1BA@extmail.extensibility.com>
To: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

During a recent conference call, I took an action to propose some resolution
text for issue #82 [1] - whether the SOAP 1.2 design should syntactically
separate Header and Body blocks or allow them to be intermingled.

Brief History with Pointers:

o originally the distinction between Header and Body blocks was seen as
'syntactic sugar'.

o first discussed on April 11 teleconference [2] as issue #3, discussion of
whether there should be a distinction in the AM.  The distinction was
removed from the AM, but the design issue remained.

o the issue was closed on April 18 teleconference [3], since the main use
case (S21) [4] dealing  with incremental parsing and processing of SOAP
messages had a proposed (though slightly ugly)  workaround in serializing
information into a header and having a 'stub' in the body blocks.

o issue was reopened April 25 [5], after receiving additional feedback from
Hervé Ruellan [6]  pointing to requirements (simplicity & resource
constraint devices -- R307 and R308) and additional  problems in meeting
R309 (meeting needs of resource constrained devices) if the proposed
workaround  for S21 is accepted.

Related Issues:

Issue 101 [9] (see also resolution text [10])
The primary purpose of this draft is to implement the action item assigned
to me at the FTF  regarding header and body elements. The goal is to make
clear that body is not symmetric with  header, and that the ultimate
receiver can use a variety of means to determine the structure and
processing rules for the body.

Section 4.3.1 was deleted which implied that header and body blocks are more
or less the same thing.

Issue 73 [11]: Identifying blocks for i/mediaries
"The working group has closed issue 73, as the requirement is satisfied by
the current design of  SOAP, in particular the Header/Body distinction."

Allowing intermingling of Header and Body blocks would result in reopening
this issue.

Issue 106 [12]: Check all must understands first & process atomically?
It would be more difficult to 'appear' to process all mU if headers/body
blocks were interspersed,  though not impossible.

Requirement 802
"XMLP must also enable processing intermediaries to locate and process XMLP
blocks intendedfor them  without processing the entire message."

It would be more difficult for intermediaries to do this if the Header and
Body blocks were  intermingled.

Although Hervé Ruellan's issues remain, the WG feels that subsequent design
decisions and issue  resolutions result in recommending that the status quo
be kept and that issue 82 should therefore be closed.  Header and Body
should remain syntactically separate.

Don Mullen

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x82
[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/04/11-pminutes.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/04/18-pminutes
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlp-reqs/#s21
[5] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/04/25-pminutes
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Apr/0139.html
[7] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/06/27-pminutes.html
[8] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/07/11-pminutes.html
[9] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x101
[10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Dec/0027.html
[11] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x73
[12] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x106
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2002 15:15:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:11:47 UTC