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

Re: LC Issue 300: How is version transition handled in the HTTP binding?

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: 17 Sep 2002 11:31:18 +0200
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1032255078.6252.36.camel@krava>

 Henrik,
 thanks for the explanation. I'm not sure if it was just me here who
read that text slightly differently. 

> Note that in general is not limited to HTTP, it is true for any binding
> supported by SOAP 1.1. If this needs to be clarified then one could add
> to the sentence as follows: "... based on a SOAP/1.1 message construct
> following SOAP/1.1 semantics using a SOAP/1.1 binding to the underlying
> protocol".

 This proposed addition would definitely improve that part of the spec. 
 Thank you.
 
                   Jacek Kopecky

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


On Thu, 2002-09-12 at 01:52, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> 
> 
> Jacek,
> 
> Regarding issue 300 [1] which you raised, I think the text in [3] is
> fairly close when it says:
> 
> * * * * * 
> 
> A SOAP Version 1.2 node receiving a SOAP/1.1 message either:
> 
> 1. MAY process the message as a SOAP/1.1 message (if supported), or
> 
> 2. MUST generate a version mismatch SOAP fault based on a SOAP/1.1
> message construct following SOAP/1.1 semantics. The SOAP fault SHOULD
> include an Upgrade header block as defined in this specification (see
> 5.4.7 VersionMismatch Faults) indicating support for SOAP Version 1.2.
> This allows a receiving SOAP/1.1 node to correctly interpret the SOAP
> fault generated by the SOAP Version 1.2 node.
> 
> * * * * * 
> 
> I read the part "... based on a SOAP/1.1 message construct following
> SOAP/1.1 semantics" as meaning that the SOAP 1.1 message uses a SOAP 1.1
> binding to the underlying protocol and not a SOAP 1.2 binding. That is,
> the SOAP 1.1 message is in every regard a valid SOAP 1.1 message
> including at the binding level.
> 
> Note that in general is not limited to HTTP, it is true for any binding
> supported by SOAP 1.1. If this needs to be clarified then one could add
> to the sentence as follows: "... based on a SOAP/1.1 message construct
> following SOAP/1.1 semantics using a SOAP/1.1 binding to the underlying
> protocol".
> 
> Comments? 
> 
> Henrik
> 
> > 6) How is version transition handled in the HTTP binding?
> >
> > In Part 1, appendix A [3], the handling of SOAP 1.1 messages 
> >by SOAP 1.2 nodes is specified. It says that a node can 
> >generate a SOAP 1.1 version mismatch fault. In SOAP 1.1 
> >messages travel via the HTTP binding using the content-type 
> >text/xml, whereas in SOAP 1.2 the messages travel using the 
> >content-type application/soap+xml.  Is the version transition 
> >still practical if current SOAP 1.1 nodes only accept text/xml 
> >SOAP messages; so when they receive a "known" SOAP fault, it 
> >has an "unknown" content-type and therefore may not be 
> >recognized as a known fault?
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x300
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part1-20020626/#version
Received on Tuesday, 17 September 2002 05:31:21 GMT

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