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

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

From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:02:36 -0400
Cc: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Message-Id: <8EE32FE4-C40D-11D6-A564-0003937568DC@sun.com>

On Saturday, Sep 7, 2002, at 17:41 US/Eastern, Martin Gudgin wrote:
>
> I see no reason why the descendants of a body element be required to
> conform to the restrictions on the body element itself
>
+1, I'm also not convinced that we should mandate qualification of the 
body child elements. What are we trying to achieve with this 
restriction (other than symmetry with header blocks) ?

Marc.

>
>> -----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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Center, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Monday, 9 September 2002 12:02:38 GMT

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