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

PASWA Feature Descriptions

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 16:44:23 -0700
Message-ID: <033201c32faa$3d4629a0$891e11ac@mnotlaptop>
To: "Xml-Dist-App@W3. Org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Herve, Noah and I have been discussing what the concrete and abstract
feature descriptions for PASWA would look like, as directed in our action
item. I've attached the current state of those discussions so that the
group can move foward in its consideration of PASWA. Please note that this
is only a preliminary draft.

Many thanks to Herve for serving as an editor.

Additionally, Noah has made some recent comments against this draft that
have yet to be incorporated. Rather than delay the distribution to the WG,
I've appended them here:

* suggest:  "The Abstract Inclusion Feature enables SOAP applications to
optimize" -> "The Abstract Inclusion Feature enables SOAP bindings to
optimize "

* section 2.4.2:  I think if the receiving binding doesn't recognize the
feature it MUST fault (or else we leave it to the binding itself to decide
when to continue,  not clear we need to say anything at all, as SOAP
itself mandates successful transmission of the Infoset or else a
binding-specific fault.)

* 2.4.2: "The SOAP node binding MUST reconstruct the original SOAP message
infoset." suggest -> "The SOAP node binding MUST be capable of
reconstructing the original SOAP message infoset (however, implementations
are free to reconstruct only those portions actually needed for
processing, or to present information from the message in a form
convenient for efficient processing.  For example, a value sent in an
optimized form (e.g. binary) MAY be made available in that form as well as
in the character form mandated by the Infoset."

* 2.4.1 and 2,4,3:  both of these say that we MUST apply a set of rules,
all of which are SHOULDs or MAYs.  Not sure whether that's the best we to
present it.

* 3.1 Spelling error:  " Introeiisduction" -> "Introduction"

I think the HTTP binding is good, at least as a starting point for
discussion, but I suggest that we need to deal with two details (at

* I think we need to indicate that in all other respects, the binding
follows the rules of the existing HTTP binding.

* I think we need to decide on how the binding signals on the wire that
the feature is being used.

Mark Nottingham

Received on Tuesday, 10 June 2003 19:44:35 UTC

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