W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlp-comments@w3.org > February 2004

Re: Potential new SOAP Issue

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:38:01 -0500
To: xmlp-comments@w3.org
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org, MURATA Makoto <murata@hokkaido.email.ne.jp>
Message-ID: <OFD37181B5.1CDF1752-ON85256E35.00559112@lotus.com>

Replying to my own message, here's a proposal to augment the issue
originally suggested in the attached email:

I've heard rumors that there is consideration of clarifying or updating RFC
3023 to indicate that <?xml version="1.1"?> can be used for the
application/xml media type.  This would be either in addition to or instead
of the current comon practice of version="1.0".  As you know, SOAP 1.2
normatively references 3023 in the HTTP binding specification where it
specifically says:

7.1.4 HTTP Media-Type
Conforming implementations of this binding:

MUST be capable of sending and receiving messages serialized using media
type "application/soap+xml" whose proper use and parameters are described
in A. The application/soap+xml Media Type.

MAY send requests and responses using other media types providing that such
media types provide for at least the transfer of SOAP XML Infoset.

MAY, when sending requests, provide an HTTP Accept header field. This
header field:

SHOULD indicate an ability to accept at minimum "application/soap+xml".

MAY additionally indicate willingness to accept other media types that
satisfy 2 above.

I think that inclusion of XML 1.1 in 3023 combined with the "MUST" above
could be viewed as introducing a post-facto change into the conformance
requirements for the SOAP HTTP binding:  if you read the old version of
3023 as calling specifically for version="1.0", then  you only need to
recognize messages with <?xml version="1.0"?>, which I'm sure is the way
that current bindings are achieving interoperation.

If 3023 is updated, then potentially based on the same SOAP 1.2
Recommendation you also need to support 1.1 to be conformant with our HTTP
binding.  Maybe requiring future versions of SOAP's HTTP binding to support
XML version 1.1 is a good thing or maybe not, but I do think we should add
discussion of 3023 and its potential evolution to the formulation of the
issue proposed for discussion below.

Let's continue discussion on distApp, not xmlpComments.  I included that
list merely because this proposes to somewhat extend the formulation of the
issue.   David:  would this be an appropriate subject for some discussion
on the Wed. call?  Thank you.


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part2-20030624/#httpmediatype

Noah Mendelsohn
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

                      Noah Mendelsohn                                                                                                   
                                               To:       xmlp-comments@w3.org                                                           
                      02/05/2004 04:12         cc:       xml-dist-app@w3.org                                                            
                      PM                       Subject:  Potential new SOAP Issue                                                       

Now that XML 1.1 is a recommendation, and allows characters not allowed in
XML 1.0, it seems to me we need a review of our entire recommendation, as
well as XOP and MTOM drafts, to make sure we are clear on issues such as:

   Are the new control characters allowed by XML 1.1 allowed in XML SOAP
   Envelope infosets?  If so, do you indicate this in the version of the
   Infoset Document Information item?
   If allowed, I don't see how the HTTP binding would send them using the
   usual RFC 3023-based serialization, which my quick reading shows as XML
   We refer in the rec to XML 1.0 whitespace, but XML 1.1 allows NEL (x85)
   as whitespace.  Are we at least clear as to what is whitespace and what
   isn't for SOAP?
   Is it legal to write a new binding or media type that sends the new
   control chars, perhaps using XML 1.1 serialization?  This would seem to
   break the equivalence among bindings.
   We should similarly make sure XOP and MTOM are clear on these issues.

Noah Mendelsohn
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Monday, 9 February 2004 12:17:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:17:00 UTC