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

RE: Issue 189: closed

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 17:00:27 -0800
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D06DEE2F7@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Maybe I am confused too but in section 5 SOAP Message Construct [1] we
include version information (as well as character encoding scheme) as
part of the infoset and in section 4.2 [2], we state the responsibility
to a binding as:

"As described in 5 SOAP Message Construct, each SOAP message is modeled
as an XML Infoset that consists of a document information item with
exactly one child: the envelope element information item. Therefore, the
minimum responsibility of a binding in transmitting a message is to
specify the means by which the SOAP XML Infoset is transferred to and
reconstituted by the binding at the receiving SOAP node and to specify
the manner in which the transmission of the envelope is effected using
the facilities of the underlying protocol."

Doesn't this mean that if version information is present in the SOAP
message then it is the responsibility of the binding to transmit it and
to pass it up when receiving? In other words, a binding can't through it
away.

PS: Moved from xmlp-comments to xml-dist-app.

Thanks,

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part1.html#soapenv
[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part1.html#bindfw

>-----Original Message-----
>From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com] 
>Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 09:53
>To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
>Cc: Jean-Jacques Moreau; Dear XMLP Comments; Yves Lafon
>Subject: RE: Issue 189: closed
>
>
>Henrik: I'm a little confused.  You are right that we agreed on the 
>resolution that you reference regarding examples.  I was 
>pointing out that 
>there are also potential questions about the appearance of 
><?xml ?> in the 
>XML sent by the HTTP binding, and also whether an XML version may in 
>principle be signaled in the XML Infoset provided to a binding for 
>transmission (and if so, what a binding is or is not 
>responsible for doing 
>about it).  I don't see the e-mail you reference as resolving those 
>questions.  Thank you very much.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>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>
>03/22/2002 02:43 PM
>
> 
>        To:     <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Jean-Jacques 
>Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
>        cc:     "Dear XMLP Comments" <xmlp-comments@w3.org>, 
>"Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>
>        Subject:        RE: Issue 189: closed
>
>
>
>Noah, Jean-Jacques,
>
>If I correctly recall, the WG had proposed a slightly different
>resolution to this issue which is stated as part of the action item
>associated with sending this notice. Unfortunately I can't refer to the
>actual minutes of the meeting as these are not yet available but the
>action item reads as follows:
>
>   2002/03/20: JJM 
>   Send closing text to xmlp-comments to close issue
>   189 with mail [24] (including some possible editorial work) 
>
>Where [24] references 
>
> 
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2002Mar
>/0117.htm
>l
>
>I don't think this semantically changes things but it may have an
>editorial impact on how it is presented in the spec. [24] refers to
>existing text in part 1, section "Relation to other XML 
>Specifications".
>As part of the resolution it was pointed out that the 
>statement could be
>improved editorially and on behalf of the editors I would be happy to
>incorporate such suggestions.
>
>Is this in accordance with the WG's understanding in general?
>
>Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
>mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com] 
>>Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 11:16
>>To: Jean-Jacques Moreau
>>Cc: Dear XMLP Comments; Yves Lafon
>>Subject: Re: Issue 189: closed
>>
>>
>>I am in agreement with the general direction signaled by this 
>proposed 
>>resolution, but I think some of the details need clarification. 
>>Specifically, I think this question potentially arises both 
>>with respect 
>>to the envelope infoset, and with respect to XML 
>>serializations that might 
>>be sent by one or another binding.  The two are not completely 
>>independent, but I think that both need to be covered. 
>>Specifically, I 
>>think that in the HTTP binding we need to describe any rules 
>>regarding the 
>>appearance of the XML declaration( <?xml  version=" " ?> in the HTTP 
>>entity body of messages prepared for transmission.  Would the 
>>correct rule 
>>be "MAY be sent, MUST be accepted"?
>>
>>In the interest of moving forward, I would find it acceptable 
>>for you to 
>>close this issue immediately, and leave to the discretion of 
>>the editors 
>>the work needed to actually clarify the various parts of the 
>>specification.  Thank you very much.
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
>>IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
>>One Rogers Street
>>Cambridge, MA 02142
>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>"Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
>>03/22/2002 04:01 AM
>>
>> 
>>        To:     Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
>>        cc:     Dear XMLP Comments <xmlp-comments@w3.org>, 
>>Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
>>        Subject:        Issue 189: closed
>>
>>
>>Noah,
>>
>>You raised an issue about what XML version number SOAP should
>>specify [1]. The WG will close this issue with the following
>>resolution:
>>
>><resolution>
>>Enchance the description of the Envelope encoding to include
>>discussion stating that the values of the [version], [character
>>encoding scheme] and [standalone] infoset properties are
>>unimportant as far as SOAP is concerned.
>></resolution>
>>
>>Please respond to this message, cc'eing xmlp-comments, if you
>>think this is an unacceptable resolution.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Jean-Jacques.
>>
>>[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x189
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 25 March 2002 20:00:38 GMT

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