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

Re: Proposal for issue 306: Is use of Appendix A optional?

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: 04 Sep 2002 21:32:48 +0200
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Message-Id: <1031167968.31264.20.camel@krava>

 Henrik,
 I disagree that the reference to the (currently) Appendix B can be
moved to SOAP Encoding. In SOAP Data Model an edge label is defined as
having the type of XML Schema QName, so no remapping is necessary in
SOAP Encoding because nothing would ever be remapped. So the reference
should probably move to SOAP Data Model, section 2.1.1 Edge Labels.
 As for the other part of the issue, I think this MUST can be hard to
enforce and not following it doesn't break interoperability (of course
the names must be QNames, but assuming they are, it doesn't matter how
the implementation mapped its names to QNames), so I prefer MAY here.
The appendix is very useful for implementations that need two-way
mapping or they just don't have a mapping yet.
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Wed, 2002-09-04 at 21:16, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> 
> 
> Issue 306 states that
> 
> "It is unclear in the RPC Representation whether the links to  Appendix
> A are a MUST (an identifier MUST be mapped to an XML  name using
> Appendix A's algorithm) or a MAY (for a possible  mapping algorithm see
> Appendix A)."
> 
> The reference to "Appendix A" should now be read as "Appendix B" [2] as
> we have inserted the media type registration as appendix A. Appendix B
> defines a mapping for converting application defined names to XML names.
> It is only referenced from part 2 section 4.2 "RPC and SOAP Body" [3].
> 
> I think there are two parts of this problem:
> 
> 1) Is the mapping required (MUST) or not (MAY)? 
> 
> 2) Is the mapping useful in other places than section 4.2?
> 
> There is no doubt that Appendix B is normative meaning that it counts as
> "specification" and not "example" or otherwise. My feeling is that *if*
> one uses names in the RPC convention that cannot be represented directly
> in XML then one MUST use Appendix B. 
> 
> However, given that the RPC convention uses the SOAP encoding, it seems
> strange to me to have the reference to Appendix B in the RPC convention
> and not as part of the SOAP encoding. I would therefore suggest that the
> reference to appendix B is moved to section  3.1.3 "Encoding compound
> values" [4] and not just in section 4.2 "RPC and SOAP Body" [3].
> 
> The proposal for closing issue 306 is therefore:
> 
> We clarify that the SOAP encoding requires use of the mapping defined in
> appendix B for encoding names that can not directly be expressed in XML.
> This requirement will be expressed in section 3.1.3 "Encoding compound
> values" [4] something like this:
> 
> "Note: An edge label is an XML Schema Qualified Name (see [XML Schema
> Part2]). Names that cannot be represented directly as XML Schema
> Qualified Names MUST use the mapping defined in Appendix B. "Mapping
> Application Defined Names to XML Names"."
> 
> The references in section 4.2 will be removed.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
> mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x306
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2.xml#namemap
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2.xml#rpcsoapbdy
> [4] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2.xml#complexenc
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 15:32:53 GMT

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