- From: Kirill Gavrylyuk <kirillg@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 21:55:04 -0700
- To: <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <B3F0DACD72892E4DB7E8296C6C9FC2F605AD8121@red-msg-03.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Our feedback on the SOAP 1.2 Attachment feature. Thanks -----Original Message----- From: Kirill Gavrylyuk Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 9:09 PM To: 'xmlp-comments@w3.org' Cc: 'fallside@us.ibm.com' Subject: QA WG feedback on the SOAP 1.2 Attachment feature 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 00:55:36 UTC