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

LC Issue 358: resolution : closed with no action

From: Don Mullen <donmullen@tibco.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 16:58:31 -0400
Message-ID: <339902DC0E58D411986A00B0D03D843201B2455C@extmail.rtp.tibco.com>
To: "'xmlp-comments@w3.org'" <xmlp-comments@w3.org>, "'MDubinko@cardiff.com'" <MDubinko@cardiff.com>


Micah:

The XMLP WG has decided to close issue 358 [1] without taking any action.
This was a duplicate of issue 336 [2], the resolution text was:

<_336>
  The XML Protocol WG considered issue 336 today, an issue that you raised
  on the SOAP spec's statements about the length of URIs.  Rather than
  having some statement containing overlapping SHOULDs (SHOULD support
  URIs of arbitrary length and SHOULD support URIs of length 2048), it
  was felt that the existing text already provided appropriate motivation
  for handling URIs of arbitrary length.  Therefore, no change is being
  made to the specification.
</_336>

Quoting directly from an email[3] on the xml-dist-app email:

<furtherReasoning>

...a MUST requirement hard to enforce:

1) We don't enforce any max number of URIs to be used in a SOAP message
which could then be interpreted as saying that we require infinite buffering
on a SOAP node.

2) Related to 1), we don't enforce any max size on a SOAP message itself

3) The current text makes it clear that "Any SOAP node MUST be able to
handle the length of any URI that it publishes" so we do have a MUST
requirement for any given SOAP node.

</furtherReasoning>

Regards,
Don Mullen (on behalf of the XML Protocol WG) 

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x358
[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x336
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Sep/0118.html
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2002 17:00:01 GMT

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