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

RE: Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements as children of Body

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2002 14:41:52 -0700
Message-ID: <92456F6B84D1324C943905BEEAE0278E0268251B@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

I see no reason why the descendants of a body element be required to
conform to the restrictions on the body element itself

Gudge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: 07 September 2002 04:08
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements as children of Body
> 
> 
> Before we loosened up the rules for processing bodies [1] I 
> would have 
> said "definitely MUST", as the element names are key to the 
> processing.  I 
> think that's still somewhat implied by: 
> 
> "An ultimate SOAP receiver MUST correctly process the 
> immediate children of 
> the SOAP body (see 5.3 SOAP Body). However, with the 
> exception of SOAP 
> faults (see 5.4 SOAP Fault),..."
> 
> But arguable undercut by:
> 
> "...Part 1 of this specification (this document) mandates no 
> particular 
> structure or interpretation of these elements, and provides 
> no standard 
> means for specifying the processing to be done."
> 
> So, in this new world, I can see it either way, but lean toward MUST. 
> 
> Interestingly, [2] makes clear that body child element names 
> are qualified, and [3] makes 
> clear that grandchildren need not be.  Having gone that far, 
> aren't we 
> being a bit vague about greatgrandchildren and other 
> descendents.  in [3] 
> should we not say, that the elements MAY be qualified, and 
> may have among 
> their descendents other elements that conform to the rules in [3]?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> [1] 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part1->
20020626/#structinterpbodies
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part1-20020626/#soapbody
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part1-20020626/#soapbodyel
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
> Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
> 08/31/2002 06:38 PM
> 
>  
>         To:     <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
>         cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
>         Subject:        Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements 
> as children of Body
> 
> 
> 
> We have two choices for this issue[1]
> 
> 1.  Stick with status-quo, child elements of soap:Body MUST 
> be qualified
> 
> 2.  We can relax the MUST to a SHOULD.
> 
> I have a preference for the former and propose we close the 
> issue with no action.
> 
> Gudge
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x356
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Saturday, 7 September 2002 17:42:24 GMT

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