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

RE: Issues 368 and 369 Proposal

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 11:31:41 -0800
Message-ID: <68B95AA1648D1840AB0083CC63E57AD6096E7CE5@red-msg-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "David Fallside" <fallside@us.ibm.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Hmm, it was the intent to indicate support for this scenario in the

"In order for an implementation to claim conformance with the SOAP 1.2
specification, it MUST implement all mandatory ("MUST") requirements
expressed in Part 1 of the SOAP 1.2 specification necessary to implement
the functionality needed by that implementation."

and in particular "the functionality needed". That is, we don't set any
boundaries to what a "function" is. However, whatever the function is,
an implementation has to comply with it. The mention of a SOAP sender
and a SOAP message are examples of such "functions". 


>We are NOT writing a specification for one or another packaged form of 
>implementation, IMO.  We are specifying a protocol.  The rule for an 
>implementation must be: be consistent with the specification, 
>no more no 
>less.  I'm sorry if that makes the QA folks wince, but there it is.
>For example, let's say I claim to have an API (think DOM) that 
>creates and 
>writes out SOAP envelopes.  I claim our spec constrains that 
>implementation, insofar as this implementation claims to write out 
>"envelopes", and we give the rules for those.  Nonetheless, this 
>implementation is neither a sender nor a receiver.  We do specify some 
>specific responsibilities, such as sender, that an implementation can 
>assume.  Still, we have no notion of completeness, except 
>insofar as that 
>follows from particular rules in the recommendation.  If I never send 
>headers, that's fine, but if I do send them they must be as the Rec 
>demands.  Similarly, a receiver that sends an mU fault for any message 
>with an mU header targeted to that receiver is a perfectly legal and 
>useful form of SOAP implementation -- some PERL scripts are 
>doing this I 
>believe.  It's just not a fully general purpose implementation.
>These are serious distinctions and I am not willing to let 
>them go, unless 
>of course I've misunderstood something.  Thanks.
Received on Wednesday, 6 November 2002 14:32:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:22 UTC