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

LC 308 closed

From: Nilo Mitra (EUS) <Nilo.Mitra@am1.ericsson.se>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 16:34:32 -0500
Message-ID: <C358DED30DFED41192E100508BB3922701EE7BFF@eamrcnt716.exu.ericsson.se>
To: "'dbox@microsoft.com'" <dbox@microsoft.com>, "'xmlp-comments@w3.org'" <xmlp-comments@w3.org>
The XMLP WG has discussed your comment [1] on the SOAP 1.2 Part 0: Primer, and decided to close it with the following comments:
- Section 2.2.1 has been renamed "Conversational message exchanges", although this by itself may not not fully address the myth (document vs. rpc) that you feel is being propagated. However, the WG does not believe that the Primer propagates such a view. The examples are sufficiently varied - although following one overall theme - to suggest the many uses of SOAP. In the RPC examples, the same example has been repeated in a different section to emphasize a different aspect, e.g., syntax in one section but a transfer mechanism in another. It would help if you could point out specific text in [0] where you feel the reader may be so misled.
- Early in the formulation of the contents of the Primer, the WG decided that the document should build up from the more straightforward scenarios - single message, request-response, fault handling,...- to the more complex features. Thus RPC was placed where it is today.
- As handling RPCs remains a requirement on SOAP 1.2 and a very common usage pattern currently, it is inevitable that there should be an emphasis on it in the Primer. In particular, a few more examples were chosen as RPCs to convey how not to do it in a Web Architecture incompatible way. This may account for the seeming emphasis. 
- Following other LC comments which have also suggested that section 2.2.2 should concentrate on the RPC syntax issues, the discussion of web architecture compatibility has been removed from that section; section 3.1.3 concentrates on the web architecture compatible ways of conveying rpcs.
- Re you comment on section 2.2.2 "RPCs may require additional information..." , please note that this was motivating the addition of a SOAP header in the example, to provide an example of item 6 from the list earlier in the section, the list itself being taken from part 2 describing RPCs. However, an additional note has been added (please see [0] same para) to point out that such info is not RPC specific.

You can find the revised editor's draft of the Primer with these and other LC comments incorporated at [0].

Please inform the WG if your concerns have been met, and, if not, what specific changes you would propose.
Thank you,
Nilo Mitra
editor, SOAP Primer

[0] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part0.html
[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x308
Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2002 17:35:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:59 UTC