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

QA WG feedback on the SOAP 1.2 Attachment feature

From: Kirill Gavrylyuk <kirillg@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 21:08:56 -0700
Message-ID: <B3F0DACD72892E4DB7E8296C6C9FC2F605AD811E@red-msg-03.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <xmlp-comments@w3.org>
Cc: <fallside@us.ibm.com>
Hi all,

Here is the feedback from QA WG on the SOAP 1.2 Attachment:

 

Overall the document [1] describes a compound SOAP structure, an
abstract feature that would require a choice of the specific
transport/encapsulation protocol bindings in order to be implemented.
Therefore an implementation of this specifications is a specification in
it's turn - a binding specification.

 

In our review we attempted to measure how testable a binding
specification is required to be by the SOAP 1.2 Attachments
specification [1].

 

We find that the following could be added/changed in [1] in order to
improve testability of the binding specifications that implement [1]:

 

1. Conformance clause should be added that would 

-                describe the subject of conformance (a binding
specification)

-                summarizes what does it mean to conform to this
specification

-                List dependencies: describe what other parts of SOAP
1.2 specification/other specifications a binding must conform to in
order to conform to this specification

 

2. Prefix att is not defined. QNames of the form att:* are used, but
prefix att is not associated with any namespace. Would be good to
explicitly associate it in the prose with the URI
http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap/features/attachment"

 

3. Sec 2 - Change "can" to "may" in the "Protocol binding specifications
can use this URI"  to conform to RFC 2119. Unless there is a good
reason, we suggest to even change it to "should", so that there is not
ambiguity on whether the specific binding uses the soap1.2 attachment
feature.

 

4. Section 6: We suggest to explicitly reference the equivalence rules
used for the URIs when the message parts are identified. (We believe
editors meant the URI equivalence rules specified in the URI spec [3]).
The fact that XML namespace spec uses different equivalence rules for
namespace URIs then the original URI spec causes a confusion among
developers on which rules to use in each case of the URIs use. 

 

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-af/

[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/ 

[3] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt 

 

Thanks

 
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2002 00:10:29 GMT

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