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

RE: Possible new LC issue: Can SOAP header blocks exist outside SOAP modules?

From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:06:02 -0800
Message-ID: <2E33960095B58E40A4D3345AB9F65EC109A8DBF9@win-msg-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "Dear XMLP Comments" <xmlp-comments@w3.org>, "XMLP Public" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Cc: "WSD Public" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

+1

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 2:42 PM
> To: Jean-Jacques Moreau; Dear XMLP Comments; XMLP Public
> Cc: WSD Public
> Subject: RE: Possible new LC issue: Can SOAP header blocks exist
outside
> SOAP modules?
> 
> 
> I absolutely believe that it should be possible to have SOAP header
blocks
> independent of SOAP modules. One reason is that we have no mechanism
for
> enforcing such a requirement. FWIW, SOAP 1.2 in fact defines two SOAP
> header blocks (the env:NotUnderstood and the env:VersionMismatch) and
they
> are not part of any SOAP module.
> 
> Regarding whether features must have a URI, given that we have no
absolute
> definition of what a feature is in general (is "security" a feature?
Is
> "HTTP Conneg" a feature? Is the HTTP 415 status code a feature?), it
> doesn't seem possible to require people to name such things. What I
think
> we *can* say is that *if* one wants to expose something as a feature
then
> one follows the guidelines for features in the SOAP 1.2 spec.
> 
> Similarly, for modules I think we can say that *if* one wants to
expose
> something as a module then one follows the guidelines for modules in
the
> SOAP 1.2 spec.
> 
> PS: I am traveling this week so won't be much on email :(
> 
> Henrik
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Nov/0008.html
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From:	 Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr]
> Sent:	 Thu 14-Nov-02 0:46
> To:	 Dear XMLP Comments; XMLP Public
> Cc:	 WSD Public
> Subject:	 Possible new LC issue: Can SOAP header blocks exist
outside
> SOAP modules?
> 
> 
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> An interesting question/issue has come up during yesterday's WSD
> face-to-face: can SOAP 1.2 header blocks exist independently from
> SOAP 1.2 modules? I.e. can you define a new header block without
> writing down on paper the corresponding module specification
> *and* without assigning a new module URI?
> 
> I think the spec is at best unclear on this topic. Beyond
> clarification, the real question is: as a WG, how do we feel
> about this issue? Since we have taken all the trouble of
> describing modules in a normative fashion, probably for a good
> reason, do we still want allow "independent" header blocks, or do
> we think they should be discouraged?
> 
> I am cc'eing ws-desc since the WSD WG is interested in this
> topic, as part of its work of describing SOAP features in WSDL
> 1.2. However, I am not raising this issue on behalf of the WSD WG
> (although the WSD might raise this issue itself in the future).
> 
> Please remove xmlp-comments from any further discussion.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jean-Jacques.
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2002 20:06:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:11 GMT