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

RE: Content-free Header and Body elements

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 11:10:50 -0400
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
Cc: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, "Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF2A66C2DD.F5CA3073-ON85256D28.0053E65B@lotus.com>

I agree, subject to making sure this doesn't take us back to WD.  The 
standards for late changes in PR don't have very much wiggle room.  I 
would like to see this as editorial clarification, but some others might 
not.  Although I agree with the change, this is not worth a several 
weeks/months delay in getting to PR.  I hope the W3C process will be 
flexible enough to allow this as an editorial change on the way to Rec 
status.  If so, I'm all for it.  Otherwise, I recommende we leave it as 
is, go to Rec., and consider this as an erratum.  It's not broken as it 
is, though certainly sub-optimal.  You can always  work around for now by 
sending an empty <header>.    I don't think that in the next few months 
there will be that many cases of intermediaries wanting to add headers to 
messages that have none.   Bottom line, this is not worth a delay of weeks 
or months.  It is worth fixing ASAP.  Agreed?

Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
05/16/2003 11:02 AM

        To:     Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
        cc:     "Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, Christopher B Ferris 
<chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, (bcc: 
Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        RE: Content-free Header and Body elements

> I think this text nails it.

Not quite.

> > 3. Element information items for additional header blocks MAY
> > be added to the [children] property of the SOAP Header
> > element information item as detailed in 2.7.2 SOAP Forwarding
> > Intermediaries. In this case, a SOAP Header element
> > information item MAY be added if not already present.

[children] is an ordered list, right?  So the Header EII "may be inserted
before the Body EII" is probably what it should say.

Rich Salz                     Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology          http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway     http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
Received on Friday, 16 May 2003 11:21:16 UTC

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