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

Fw: Resolution for Issue 446

From: David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 08:59:31 -0800
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF88EF15F8.72436223-ON88256E29.005D3B0D-88256E29.005D5728@us.ibm.com>

David C. Fallside, IBM
Data Management Standards
Tel 530.477.7169 (TL 544.9665)

----- Forwarded by David Fallside/Santa Teresa/IBM on 01/28/2004 08:58 AM
|         |           Noah               |
|         |           Mendelsohn/Cambridg|
|         |           e/IBM@Lotus        |
|         |           Sent by:           |
|         |           xmlp-comments-reque|
|         |           st@w3.org          |
|         |                              |
|         |                              |
|         |           01/28/2004 08:32 AM|
  |                                                                                                                         |
  |       To:       "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>                                                                 |
  |       cc:       xmlp-comments@w3.org                                                                                    |
  |       Subject:  Re: Resolution for Issue 446                                                                            |

First, I apologize for missing the call where this was discussed.  I have
some doubts about the overall direction chosen, but I will happily defer
to the will of the group in an area where anything we do involves
compromises.  So, I accept the overall direction of outlawing xop:Include
in the input.

That said, I don't think the proposed text is acceptable for at least two
reasons, and so with regret I must indicate that for now the overall issue
resolution is not acceptable to me.  The two reasons are:

1)  I think the use of the word "Note" in the phrase "Note that the data
model used as input to XOP processing MUST
NOT contain any element nodes" is unfortunate, as it unnecessarily suggests
informal advice.  I think
we should avoid using "Note" and capitalized "MUST"/"MUST NOT" in the same
sentence."  Suggested resplution:  delete the word "Note".

2) As I read the attached, it puts changes in XOP but not in the
SOAP-specific portions of the spec.  I think that is unacceptable,
especially since in this particular way we are proposing a (marginally)
non-conforming SOAP binding, and one that has at least some security or
integrity exposures if not implemented carefully.  In other words, if
either your API or some inbound message at an intermediary allows a
xop:include element to creep in and you fail to detect it, you can send
erroneous data downstream.  Furthermore, nothing in the SOAP Rec licenses
a binding that is incapable of transmitting more or less arbitrary
elements within SOAP bodies or header element children.  I propose the
following additional text to be included (with suitable editorial cleanup)
into the HTTP binding:  "Implementations of this binding MUST enforce the
restriction [link to XOP spec] that XOP not be used with data models that
contain element nodes of name xop:include.  In any case where a SOAP
envelope containing such a node is to be sent the binding MUST do one of
the following:  a) fall back to use of the application/soap+xml media type
or (b) reflect a binding-dependent SOAP fault.   Note that such envelopes
could in principle arise either from data created locally at the sending
node, or in data relayed at an intermediary, and bindings are responsible
for checking all such input as necessary to ensure that the rule just
stated is enforced.

The first of these is an editorial matter that I am sure we can handle
easily.  I propose that, if the chair is willing, we discuss the second on
the call today.  Again, my apologies for being on the road at the Schema
WG meeting during last week's call.

Noah Mendelsohn
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

"Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Sent by: xmlp-comments-request@w3.org
01/26/2004 06:30 AM

        To:     <xmlp-comments@w3.org>
        cc:     <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
        Subject:        Resolution for Issue 446


You raised issue 446[1] regarding whether MIFFY/XOP can serialize a data
model that already contains xop:Include elements. The XMLP WG adopted
the following text into Section 3 of the XOP document:

                 Note that the data model used as input to XOP processing
NOT contain any element nodes with a dm:node-name
data models containing such elements cannot              be serialized
using XOP.

I trust the resolves the issue to your satisfaction.


Martin Gudgin
For the W3C XMLP WG

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x446

(image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif)

(image/gif attachment: pic28766.gif)

Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2004 12:03:06 UTC

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