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

Re: Proposal for issue 277 - part 2

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 22:13:01 -0400
To: "Herve Ruellan" <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF9BDEA396.4AB8D27C-ON85256C56.000C19BE@lotus.com>

Herve Ruellan writes:

>> That's correct, we could just use the namespace URI of the envelope 
version. 

I'm not sure I've thought this through properly, but what if some future 
version of soap changed the local part of the envelope name:

<soap:Envelope2 xmlns:soap="...uri for soap 2.0...">

Is it completely clear that SOAP 1.2 would never want to send a version 
mismatch for this?  I can't quite decide how it would know, but you could 
argue that any root element of the supposed message infoset is by 
definition intended as some version of the envelope.  If so, I think we 
need to send either a QName or an Expanded Name, and I suggest we stick 
with QName.  In general, sending just the namespace name on the theory 
that the local name is always Envelope seems unnecessarily tricky.  We use 
QNames to identify elements in many other faults, so I suggest doing the 
same here.


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






"Herve Ruellan" <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
10/14/2002 11:03 AM

 
        To:     xml-dist-app@w3.org
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        Proposal for issue 277 - part 2



Hello all,

This is the second part of a proposal for resolving issue 277 [1] (half 
dealing with action attributed to Jean-Jacques)
This second part is about the use of many Namespaces in the spec, which 
may be unwieldy and unnecessary.

Here is a list of the namespaces used in the spec (both part 1 [2] and 
part 2 [3]) and a summary of their use:

1) env -- http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope
Used for Envelope related EII and AII

2) flt -- http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-faults
This is the namespace for the SOAP header block generated by 
mustUnderstand faults.
Used for NotUnderstood eii

3) upg -- http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-upgrade
This is the namespace for the SOAP header block generated by 
VersionMismatch faults.
Used for:
Upgrade eii
Envelope eii (child of Upgrade eii)

4) enc -- http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-encoding
This is the namespace for SOAP encoding.
Used for:
itemType aii.
arraySize aii.

5) rpc -- http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-rpc
This is the namespace for RPC.
Used for:
result eii.
ProcedureNotPresent fault Subcode
BadArguments fault Subcode

6) context -- 
http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/bindingFramework/ExchangeContext/
This namespace is used for defining properties which apply to a message 
exchange context:
ExchangePatternName
FailureReason
Role
State

7) mep -- http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/mep/
Not used.

8) fail -- http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/mep/FailureReasons/
Not used any more.

9) reqres -- http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/mep/request-response/
This is the namespace for the request-response MEP.
It is used for defining properties which apply to the request-response 
mep (those properties are also used in the SOAP Response MEP):
reqres:OutboundMessage
reqres:InboundMessage
reqres:ImmediateDestination
reqres:ImmediateSender

10) webmeth -- http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/features/web-method/
This is the namespace for the Web Method feature.
It is used for defining one property:
webmeth:Method


Proposal
--------
Here is a proposal for dealing with all those namespaces. This proposal 
was cut into pieces to allow a finer grained decision process.

(i) Keep http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope namespace

(ii) Merge http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-faults namespace and 
http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-upgrade namespace into 
http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope namespace.
<rationale>
This remove two namespaces. Both are used in the main part of the SOAP 
1.2 specification and are tightly linked with the processing of SOAP 
messages.
</rationale>

(iii) Keep http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-encoding namespace.
<rationale>
This namespace is used for defining aii in an independant part of the 
spec.
</rationale>

(iv) Keep http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-rpc namespace.
<rationale>
This namespace is used for defining an eii in an independant part of the 
spec.
</rationale>

(v) Remove http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/mep/ namespace and 
http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/mep/FailureReasons/ namespace.
<rationale>
They are not used anymore.
</rationale>

(vi) Define properties using URIs and not QNames (see first part of 
proposal), and remove 
http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/bindingFramework/ExchangeContext/ 
namespace, http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/mep/request-response/ 
namespace and http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/features/web-method/ 
namespace which are only used for defining properties.
<rationale>
It seems better to identify properties with URIs than with QNames.
</rationale>

Conclusion
----------
Depending on the choices made over this proposal, we can have from 3 to 
8 namespaces defined in the spec.

Best regards,

Hervé.


[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x277
[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part1.xml
[3] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2.xml
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2002 22:15:54 GMT

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