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: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 14:45:31 -0400
To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, "Herve Ruellan" <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF6C73669A.C6CA9C14-ON85256C56.006702DF@lotus.com>

Thanks Henrik.  I intuited that there was a problem with using just the 
NS, but gave the wrong example last night.  I think you've got the right 
one.  I agree, QName is better I think.

------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
10/18/2002 12:57 PM

 
        To:     "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
        cc:     "Herve Ruellan" <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
        Subject:        RE: Proposal for issue 277 - part 2



I agree that this would be a consistent model but I think it would
require changes to the current model based on qualified names described
in part 1, section 2.8:

"The version of a SOAP message is identified by the qualified name of
the child element information item of the document information item. A
SOAP Version 1.2 message has a child element information item of the
document information item with a [local name] of Envelope and a
[namespace name] of "http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope" (see 5.1
SOAP Envelope)."

If I recall, the reason for going with a qualified name was to clarify
that 

  <S:HenriksEnvelope xmlns:S="http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope">

would result in a S:VersionMismatch and not a S:Sender fault. Using a
qualified name could also be seen as being more consistent with out
treatment of header blocks.

>I disagree, the namespace of the envelope defines the version 
>of SOAP - 
>any future version of SOAP that added new elements or changed element 
>names would also have to change the namespace. The upgrade 
>header block 
>just declares support for a particular version and hence only the 
>namespace is required - claiming to support that version means 
>supporting changed or multiple root elements so there's no need to 
>mention them explicitly.

Henrik

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part1.xml#envvermodel
Received on Friday, 18 October 2002 14:48:28 GMT

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