- From: Nilo Mitra (EUS) <Nilo.Mitra@am1.ericsson.se>
- Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:54:09 -0500
- To: "'xmlp-comments@w3.org'" <xmlp-comments@w3.org>
- Cc: "'peter@razorsoft.com'" <peter@razorsoft.com>
- Message-ID: <C358DED30DFED41192E100508BB3922701EE7B82@eamrcnt716.exu.ericsson.se>
Thank you for your comment, which has been listed as Issue 296 in the SOAP 1.2 Last Call Issues List. Your suggestion appears to be a good one, and I shall include it in the next revision of the SOAP 1.2 Primer. Thank you, Nilo Mitra Nilo Mitra Ericsson Internet Applications, Inc. phone: +1 516-677-1073 mobile: +1 516-476-7427 email: nilo.mitra@ericsson.com From: "Peter Drayton" <peter@razorsoft.com> To: <xmlp-comments@w3.org> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 23:08:02 -0700 Message-ID: <001d01c22eea$a55d8630$56a6accf@razorsoft.com> Subject: Message in Example 2 in Primer doesn't match prose exactly SOAP Version 1.2 Part 0: Primer, Section 2.2.1, Example 2: The prose describing the message says that the message is returned from the travel service, requesting clarification on the choice of airports in the departing city. However, the message itself doesn't (a) contain any indication that it is a request for clarification; (b) indicate if the request pertains to the outbound leg or the inbound leg; (c) indicate if the request pertains to the departure or arrival airport of a specific leg. It is possible to claim that the target node provides the context for processing the message, i.e the message might be sent to different endpoints depending on which leg & choice of arrival/departure requires clarification, and the endpoints might know that they are participating in a conversational exchange and understand the flow, but I don't think this is very clear. It also seems strange to me that the same <itinerary> element is sent in both directions, with different child elements and meaning. I don't think this is as clear as it could be for a primer. I'd suggest modifying example 2 to make the flow of messages back and forth clearer. For example: <?xml version='1.0' ?> <env:Envelope xmlns:env="http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope"> <env:Header> <m:reservation xmlns:m="http://travelcompany.example.org/reservation" env:role="http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope/role/next" env:mustUnderstand="true"> <m:reference>uuid:093a2da1-q345-739r-ba5d-pqff98fe8j7d</m:reference> <m:dateAndTime>2001-11-29T13:35:00.000-05:00</m:dateAndTime> </m:reservation> <n:passenger xmlns:n="http://mycompany.example.com/employees" env:role="http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope/role/next" env:mustUnderstand="true"> <n:name>John Q. Public</n:name> </n:passenger> </env:Header> <env:Body> <q:itineraryClarification xmlns:q="http://travelcompany.example.org/reservation/travel/"> <q:departure> <q:departing> <q:airportChoices> JFK LGA EWR </q:airportChoices> </q:departing> </q:departure> <q:return> <q:arriving> <q:airportChoices> JFK LGA EWR </q:airportChoices> </q:arriving> </q:return> </q:itineraryClarification> </env:Body> </env:Envelope> This structure mirrors the prose, presuming the prose meant "...namely the choice of airports in the departing city *on both the outbound and the inbound legs*". If the prose meant to only request clarification on one of the legs, the sample could obviously be simplified. --Peter http://www.razorsoft.net/weblog http://staff.develop.com/peterd
Received on Tuesday, 13 August 2002 14:55:24 UTC