W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > May 2007

Re: Checked in soap 1.2 part 3

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 15:30:02 -0400
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFF289ECD8.5A53FBFF-ON852572D1.006A55A1-852572D1.006B0705@lotus.com>

Hi Dave.  Mostly this looks very good to me, modulo the fact that I've 
never been thrilled about including the multicast in this.  Anyway, here 
are a few more specific comments:

> A receiver might, in exceptional circumstances, treat as erroneous, or 
lost, a message that has been received intact. 

That "might" seems odd given our use of RFC 2119 terminology elsewhere.  I 
wonder whether that might better be phrased as:

A receiver MAY (though typically only in exceptional circumstances) treat 
as erroneous, or lost, a message that has been received intact. 

(editorial) I'm not 100% sure, but I think it's preferred to say 
"binding-specific" rather than "binding specific".

Anyway, paragraphs 2 & 3 of section 2.2 are inconsistent on this. Probably 
you should do it one way throughout.

> Determination of abnormal operation is outside the scope of this 

Might it be more appropriate to say that:

"Except insofar as certain error processing is required or suggested by 
the use of the SOAP processing model, determination of abnormal operation 
is outside the scope of this specification." 

I think, for example, that faulting on an mU header you don't recognize is 
required.  Though the details are in SOAP Part 1, this MEP normatively 
appeals to use of that.


Editorial:  long ago and far away, when I was in the workgroup, I thought 
we were leaning toward splitting the table in 2.3 into two tables, one for 
sender and one for receiver.  That seems to me to make clearer that the 
properties really do apply to one or the other, but never both.  I can 
certainly live with what you have if you prefer.

While it's always nice to hear from you all again, I don't need any 
explicit followup on these points.  They are offered for your 
consideration in case you all find them helpful.  So, if you decide for 
your own reasons to open formal issues to track any of them, that's up to 
you, but you don't need to respond formally with dispositions on my 

Thanks!  I hope I'll be seeing some of you in Banff next week.


Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Friday, 4 May 2007 19:29:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:30 UTC