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

Re: Issue 192 & R803

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 09:33:50 -0500
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: chris.ferris@sun.com, rayw@netscape.com (Ray Whitmer), xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF07A49BBB.78B04BC4-ON85256B8B.005017B8@lotus.com>
Mark Baker writes:

>> Chapter 2 of the soap framework makes 
>> clear that a fault in such a successfully received message will be 
treated 
>> as a fault.

> I just re-read section 2, and didn't notice anything like that.

My mistake, you're right.  Since we changed the interpretation of bodies, 
there seems to be no requirement that a node do anything with a Fault 
that's an immediate child of the body (since we give complete latitude on 
interpretation of the body.)  I wonder whether we're comfortable with 
that, but you are right based on the current text.  I still think it 
wouldn't be an R803 problem if we did mandate interpretation as a fault. 
Thanks.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part1-20011217/#structinterpbodies

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------





Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
03/28/02 09:04 PM

 
        To:     noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
        cc:     chris.ferris@sun.com, rayw@netscape.com (Ray Whitmer), xml-dist-app@w3.org
        Subject:        Re: Issue 192 & R803

> Chapter 2 of the soap framework makes 
> clear that a fault in such a successfully received message will be 
treated 
> as a fault.

I just re-read section 2, and didn't notice anything like that.  But if
there was something in there that said what you claim, it would be a
violation of R803.

> So, I think it's quite legitimate for you to argue that my proposal 
would 
> be the wrong one on the merits.  I don't see how it could be an R803 
> violation.  Thank you.

That's fair (modulo the above concern).  But I'd ask that we clearly
label this binding as being one that will prevent some HTTP
intermediaries from being used in the chain.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Friday, 29 March 2002 09:49:37 GMT

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