W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlp-comments@w3.org > March 2002

Re: SOAP Primer Review

From: David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:10:14 -0800
To: Marcel <marcel_jemio@yahoo.com>, nilo.mitra@ericsson.com
Cc: xmlp-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF1FDB3956.033B0080-ON88256B8A.0063B0A7@boulder.ibm.com>

Marcel, thanks for you r input, I am cc'ing xmlp-comments which is the
place to send such comments (per the Primer Status section).

David C. Fallside, IBM
Ext Ph: 530.477.7169
Int  Ph: 544.9665

|         |           Marcel           |
|         |           <marcel_jemio@yah|
|         |           oo.com>          |
|         |                            |
|         |           03/28/2002 09:33 |
|         |           AM               |
|         |                            |
  |                                                                                                                           |
  |       To:       David Fallside/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS                                                                     |
  |       cc:                                                                                                                 |
  |       Subject:  SOAP Primer Review                                                                                        |
  |                                                                                                                           |
  |                                                                                                                           |

David -

Here is a review I had committed to do in Cannes for the XMLP Group.  As it
appears, DISA has had
pressing requirements to remain active in the WS-A and WS-D groups...  I
apologize for taking
considerable time in reviewing the SOAP Primer.  I am actually on vacation
now and found the time
to review it.

General overview: it needs a review of editing and intent.  The document is
incredibly helpful in
helping someone like me who isn't versed in SOAP to get a fast working
knowledge of what it can do
(not so much what it can't but I liked the guidance that it be used as an
extension - where ebXML
MS picks it up)

Again thank you and I apologize as to whom to give this to so I am asking
your assistance and
patience yet again - will you kindly forward this on to the appropriate
person?  Thank you again.

Kind Regards,

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards®

SOAP Version 1.2 Part 0: Primer
W3C Working Draft 17 December 2001


1. 1 Introduction - first para, first sentence - same as the last para,
first sentence
2. 1.1 Overview - there isn't a "Section 1"
3. 2.1 SOAP Messages - "A header is optional, but we have chosen to
included it in our example." - it should be "include"
4. 2.1 SOAP Messages - "...which seems to imply that this..."  I don't
recall a "imply" verbage in other Primer's but I could be mistaken...
5. 2.1 SOAP Messages - "...and represent some logical grouping..." - remove
6. 2.2 SOAP Processing Model - name of example should be more verbose and
less cryptic
7. 2.2 SOAP Processing Model  - "The thrid header block"  - should be
8. 2.2 SOAP Processing Model  - "the header blockk aThirdBlock" - should be
9. 2.2 SOAP Processing Model  - The primer might want to be explicit about
not having a "actor" attribute value of "none" and a mustUnderstand value
of "true"
10. 2.2 SOAP Processing Model  - The primer might want to be explicit
example 1ter and the "actor" value of "next" and whether the final
recipient of the SOAP message actually processes the "anotherBlock" -
currently it just states: "It may process the header block anotherBlock, as
it is targeted at itself (in the role of "next") but it is not mandatory to
do so if the specifications for processing the blocks do not demand it."  I
refer to the "specification..." part - is this referring to a TPA or is it
referring to the final REC of SOAP? - can't tell by what is written
11. 2.3.2 - a few paragraphs in... "One possiblity is that such a URI
identifying the target is carried in a SOAP header block. Some protocol
bindings, such as HTTP, offer a mechanism for carrying the URI. " - should
be "possibility"
12. 2.4 Fault Scenarios - "was the unlimate recipient of the message which
did so" should be "ultimate"
Received on Thursday, 28 March 2002 13:52:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:58 UTC