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

Closing Issue 277

From: Herve Ruellan <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 17:13:52 +0100
Message-ID: <3DC69CC0.7080709@crf.canon.fr>
To: duerst@w3.org, xmlp-comments@w3.org

Martin,

You raised issue 277 [1], which contains two parts:

1 - The use of URIs in some places and qnames in other places
is arbitrary and very confusing. Except for element/attribute names,
URIs should always be used. This would also simplify mapping to
description languages,...

2 - Compared to other W3C specs, soap uses a very large number
of namespaces. Many of these namespaces in turn are used for very
few things. This creates an unnecessary overhead in particular
for small messages (as they may e.g. be used on small devices),
and overall seems quite unnecessary.


Part 1 resolution:
Since your review of the spec, it has evolved, and in several places the 
usage of QNames has been replaced by the usage or URIs. Furthermore, the 
working group has agreed upon the following resolution for closing this 
first part of the issue:
- in Part 1, 5.4.1.3 SOAP Value Element (with Subcode parent)
we continue using QNames for representing the SOAP Value Element in Faults.
<rationale>
this may be inconsistent with other usage of QNames, but the WG thinks 
that the change to URIs was not necessary and would have a great impact 
on current implementation of SOAP 1.2.
</rationale>

- in Part 1, 5.4.7 VersionMismatchFaults
- in Part 1, 5.4.8 mustUnderstand Faults
- in Part 2, 2.2 Graph Nodes
- in Part 2, 3.1.4 Computing the Type Name property
- in Part 2, 3.1.4.1 itemType Attribute Information Item
we continue using QNames in those places.
<rationale>
in all those places, QNames are used for refering to Element Information 
Item Names or Attribute Information Item Names. Consequently, the WG 
thinks the usage of QNames is appropriate.
</rationale>

- in Part 2, 5.1.1 Properties
we will name properties with URIs rather than with QNames.
<rationale>
it seems more coherent to use URIs here, and the change should not have 
too much impact on current implementations.
</rationale>

Part 2 resolution:
- Keep http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope namespace.
<rationale>
This is the main spec namespace.
</rationale>

- Merge http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-faults namespace and
http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-upgrade namespace into
http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope namespace.
<rationale>
Both namespaces are used in the main part of the SOAP
1.2 specification and are tightly linked with the processing of SOAP
messages.
</rationale>

- Keep http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-encoding namespace.
<rationale>
This namespace is used for defining aii in an independant part of the spec.
</rationale>

- Keep http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-rpc namespace.
<rationale>
This namespace is used for defining an eii in an independant part of the
spec.
</rationale>

- Remove http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/mep/ namespace and
http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/mep/FailureReasons/ namespace.
<rationale>
They are not used anymore.
</rationale>

- Remove http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/bindingFramework/ExchangeContext/
namespace, http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/mep/request-response/
namespace and http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/features/web-method/
namespace.
<rationale>
Those namespaces were only used for identifying properties with QNames. 
As properties are now identified with URIs, they are not used anymore.
</rationale>

In addition the WG agreed to change the name of the envelope Element 
Information Item found in the old http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-upgrade 
namespace to supportedEnvelope to avoid collision with the envelope 
Element Information Item found in the 
http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope namespace.



Please let us know asap if this resolution does not suit you.

Regards,

Hervé Ruellan.


[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x277
Received on Monday, 4 November 2002 11:14:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:27 GMT