Re: ISSUE-32 (Protocol-2015 too vague): Protocol-2015 too vaguely worded, probably unnecessary [SOAP-JMS Binding specification]

Filing of this issue completes my ACTION-151

-Eric.

On 03/15/2010 04:57 PM, SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
> ISSUE-32 (Protocol-2015 too vague): Protocol-2015 too vaguely worded, probably unnecessary [SOAP-JMS Binding specification]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/32
>
> Raised by: Eric Johnson
> On product: SOAP-JMS Binding specification
>
> At the moment, Protocol-2015 (http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#Protocol-2015)
>
> states: "The contentType parameter MUST reflect the value specified in the Content-type part header for the first part (the SOAP body, so text/xml or application/xop+xml)"
>
> Items:
> #1) Vague: "reflect" is a completely vague word with unclear meaning.
>
> #2) Incorrect: "first part" - should the message be MIME multi-part, the "first part" could be a binary attachment - it does not need to be the actual SOAP message (as we've discussed in previous conference calls and email threads)
>
> #3) Incomplete: "so text/xml or..." - is an incomplete list of possibilities, but its presence in a normative statement implies it is exhaustive.
>
> Particularly on the last item (#3), I don't see that it is actually useful to be exhaustive - if someone comes up with a new SOAP specification that somehow affects the "contentType" parameter, it would be better for everyone if our spec is not overly prescriptive.
>
> Proposal:
>
> Remove the normative statement, as it is not clarifying anything, and it isn't adding any useful normative requirements.
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 15 March 2010 23:58:48 UTC