- From: Don Mullen <donmullen@tibco.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:14:05 -0500
- 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]) --------------------------------------------- <quote> 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. </quote> 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. Resolution: ----------- 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. Thanks, 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