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

Modelling the sender as a node that does processing & Handling comments in SOAP

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 09:44:15 +0200
Message-ID: <3E93CF4F.7010805@crf.canon.fr>
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org

Noah,

My assumption was that the initial sender would always do what is 
appropriate with commments, i.e. send them, and that the problem would 
only occur at receivers, i.e. intermediaries, which might not transmit 
comments. The feature/header block was to prevent intermediaries from 
discarding comments. Are you saying it might be too late, because 
comments may have been discarded by the XML parser already, before the 
processing model kicks in?

Re. modelling "the sender [...] as a node that does processing", the 
recent "Infoset Addendum to SwA" proposal[1] goes some way towards that 
direction, with the DoInclude header block.

Jean-Jacques.

[1] http://www.gotdotnet.com/team/jeffsch/paswa/paswa61.html

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

> 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 Wednesday, 9 April 2003 03:44:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:14 GMT