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

RE: Issue 189: closed

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:31:34 -0500
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, xml-dist-app@w3.org, "Yves Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFEA23B73D.FA54B204-ON85256B89.00666966@lotus.com>
>> my reading is that we allow one child EII which 
>> is the envelope but that other properties 
>> like base URI, encoding and version are properties
>> and not child EIIs and hence also allowed

On reflection, that's a sensible reading,  but I strongly feel that the 
current text is at best unclear, and arguably misleading.  If this is what 
we want, we should be explicit as to which properties are allowed 
(possibly any), and we should spell out any non-obvious implications (if 
any) of using particular properties.  Do we allow a [base URI] in the 
infoset?  I thought that came from the binding.  Can the node specify an 
encoding when sending?  Again, we don't even know whether the binding is 
encoding at all.  Unparsed entities?  Arguably we've ruled them out 
elsewhere, but if version is implicitly allowed, why not UE?   Etc.  I had 
originally assumed ONLY the one child.  If we want other properties, we 
should be clear on the rules and interpretations, I think.  Many thanks.

------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
03/26/2002 11:13 PM

 
        To:     <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
        cc:     "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, "Yves 
Lafon" <ylafon@w3.org>
        Subject:        RE: Issue 189: closed



Hmm, my reading is that we allow one child EII which is the envelope but
that other properties like base URI, encoding and version are properties
and not child EIIs and hence also allowed. In section "Use of URIs in
SOAP" we do allow a base URI to be propagated from the underlying
protocol - I had thought that this would be through the base URI
property. If this is not the case then that should be corrected too.

>"A SOAP message is specified as an XML Infoset that consists 
>of a document 
>information item with exactly one child, which MUST be the 
>SOAP Envelope 
>element information item (see 5 SOAP Message Construct)."
>
>Infoset [2] makes clear that [version] is a child of the doc 
>info item. 
>So, it looks to me like we DON'T have version information.  If that's 
>intentional, fine.  If not, we need to consider revisions.  I 
>also think 
>the HTTP binding needs to be clear on how the serialization 
>looks. Thanks!

Henrik 

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part1.html#soapenv
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xml-infoset/#infoitem.document
[3] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part1.html#useofuris
Received on Wednesday, 27 March 2002 13:46:50 GMT

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