W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2004

Re: Binding framework & XML Version / Infoset

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 17:51:55 +0200 (MEST)
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0404231744150.29169@gnenaghyn.vaevn.se>

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

> Answering my own mail, the proposal I sent a couple of days ago failed to
> deal with this very question (link not available as I'm offline, but it
> was sent to distApp on 04/21/2004 12:06 AM EDT, titled "Proposed text for
> issues rec20 and rec22").  Specifically, if a sender prepares an outbound
> message infoset, or if an intermediary attempts to relay such an infoset,
> and if the usual HTTP binding is being used with support only for
> application/soap+xml, in what way should the HTTP binding fault?  I think
> we should document this.

We agreed on the teleconference that this case would be covered by the
"Unsupported media type" error in our current HTTP binding, which make
sense, as the processing was not able to complete because of a wrong media
type received.
Of course it is not a generic fault, but it can be generalized to all
binding-specific fault that indicate invalid or unrecognizable content

> In fact, I should own up to the fact that my proposed text went a little
> further than fixing the fundamental error in SOAP 1.2, and signalled our
> intention to allow XML 1.1 etc.  I think this is the right long term text,
> but whether to do it all in an erratum, or to split between an erratum and
> a SOAP 1.2.1 I see as a close call.  If you want to allow only XML 1.0 in
> SOAP 1.2 and reserve XML 1.1 etc. for a future SOAP 1.2.1, then I think
> the necessary adaptations to my proposed text are straightforward.   Was
> this choice discussed on the Wed. telcon?  Sorry I missed it.  Either
> direction (go straight to XML 1.1 & future versions in the erratum, as I
> proposed, or XML 1.0 only in the erratum) is OK with me as long as we are
> absolutely clear what the rules are.  Thank you, and sorry for any
> confusion.

There was consensus to have that in the errata, allowing any version of
XML in SOAP, but restricting the media type. A new application/soap+xml
RFC has been prepared to reflect the limitation to only XML 1.0 for the
serialization. Side note, your proposed text has been accepted :)

Yves Lafon - W3C
"Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
Received on Friday, 23 April 2004 11:53:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:25 UTC