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

RE: Propose resolution of issue 191

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 18:48:39 -0500
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFC2E135E9.A06CB94B-ON85256B87.0083AA88@lotus.com>
+1 

>> and/or does contain a valid SOAP envelope.

Faithfully copied from the editors' draft :-).  You're right, it should be 
fixed, but it's not part of 191.  You happen to know any editors?

------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
03/25/2002 06:48 PM

 
        To:     <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: Propose resolution of issue 191



Looks good - two minor (editorial) comments:

1) It seems there is a 'negation' missing as in "...does contain an
>>in<<valid SOAP envelope..." which can be found in the paragraph:

"The message is deemed to have been intended for the local SOAP node,
but is deemed badly formed: ill-formed XML, contains a serialized DTD,
and/or does contain a valid SOAP envelope."

2) Might be good to be consistent about saying "SOAP message" as in "XML
infoset of a SOAP message" rather than "envelope Infoset" and other
variants. In general, I think we mean "message" when we talk about the
SOAP message construct.

Thanks!

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com

>This note is in fulfillment of my action item to propose a 
>resolution of
>issue 191 [1].  I believe that this resolution is reasonably 
>complete and
>correct, but I suggest that someone who is more familiar with the HTTP
>binding than I am doublecheck the suggested changes to the 
>state tables for
>that binding (basically, these are to ensure that a message 
>received with a
>DTD in its serialization causes the same fault is any other malformed
>message.)
Received on Monday, 25 March 2002 19:11:47 GMT

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