W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Issue 421: Handling of comments in SOAP

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 15:57:07 -0400
To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF81040FEA.372EAFD7-ON85256D02.006DBDD3@lotus.com>

Jean-Jacques Moreau writes:

>> I prefer B2 ("MAY transmit comments"). 
>> Requiring all comments to be transmitted 
>> could then be achieved via a feature/header block.

I'm not so sure.  Our processing model requires that headers and 
mustUnderstand be checked by receivers, not senders.  Certainly we can 
define a binding-level feature that happens to depend on headers in the 
outbound message, but I think that's a bit subtle.  Any mustUnderstand 
checking will only be done at the receivers, which is in general too late 
I think.

So, I think we either have to live with "MAY" transmit (or SHOULD or 
something similar implying flexibility), or we stick with our current 
model which is:  the bindings transmit the Infoset.  I think it is 
coherent to have a binding level feature to indicate whether comments are 
transmitted, but its enforcement cannot be mU on a header.  If we have a 
binding-level feature, then I think we have to document that, and decide 
how the HTTP binding supports it.

By the way, I've always wondered whether we shouldn't model the sender as 
well as the receiver as a node that does processing...this would indeed 
allow us to use mU headers to trigger this behaviour.  I think we're too 
late in the design process for that now.

I'm still not 100% sure what I think is best regarding comment handling. I 
can see use cases both ways. 

Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2003 16:04:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:23 UTC