Re: Proposal for SOAP 1.2 LC-Issue 371: Multiple Choice Assertions

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen suggests:

>> "In all cases where a SOAP header block is processed, the SOAP node
>> MUST understand the SOAP header block and MUST do such processing in a
>> manner fully conformant with the specification for that header block.
>> Successful processing of one header block does not guarantee
>> successful processing of another block with the same fully qualified
>> name within the same message."

I don't have a problem with the intent, but this wording comes close to 
implying that a node need not consistently >>understand<< headers, and I 
don't think that's what we mean.  We're clear that understanding is based 
on having and coding for the specification for a qname.  I'm  a bit 
nervous about appearing to say that again, but if we want to, I'd suggest:

<proposed>
"In all cases where a SOAP header block is processed, the SOAP node MUST 
understand the SOAP header block and MUST do such processing in a manner 
fully conformant with the specification for that header block; because 
understanding is a function of the qualified name of the header (see 2.4 
Understanding SOAP Header blocks), a given node must consistently 
understand or not understand any header blocks that share a common 
qualified name within a single message.  Nonetheless, the successful 
processing of one header block does not guarantee successful processing of 
another block with the same fully qualified name within the same message: 
the specification for the header determines the circumstances in which 
such processing would result in a fault."
</proposed>

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

Received on Tuesday, 22 October 2002 11:29:21 UTC