Re: Some suggestions for the SOAP api

Chris wrote:

> Yes, it is repetitive, and in many cases (including mine) one could use the
> html version just fine.  However, there is a danger in parsing and
> reformatting their HTML -- what if they change the messages and their
> markup?  If your app was critical enough, you'd have a problem and maybe not
> even know it.
> I don't like parsing rules in my app tied to message formats on theirs.
> That's why I say it's safest for them to offer plain text.

Sure, the parsing rules should be outside the code, that's
why I prefer xslt.

But if we follow the idea of text elements, we'll loose the
"semantic" information carried with the html data that the
current soap12 api provides.

<div class="ve mid-76">
      You have used the element named above in your document, but the
      document type you are using does not define an element of that name.
      This error is often caused by:
      <li>incorrect use of the "Strict" document type with a document that
      uses frames (e.g. you must use the "Frameset" document type to get
      the "&lt;frameset&gt;" element),</li>
      <li>by using vendor proprietary extensions such as "&lt;spacer&gt;"
      or "&lt;marquee&gt;" (this is usually fixed by using CSS to achieve
      the desired effect instead).</li>
      <li>by using upper-case tags in XHTML (in XHTML attributes and elements
      must be all lower-case).</li>

Inside this <div class="ve mid-76"> which is extracted from the
m:explanation of a soap response, we have <p> and <ul>
and they both have a different "meaning", one is a paragraph
the other is an ordered list.

If we you use <m:explanationcontenttext> as you suggested,
we'll loose this "difference" between text parts of the explanation.

So, what to do? create different <m:explanationcontenttext> ?
Surely not! We'll reinvent HTML then.

The point is that I think that these explanations are little
and I'm sure they're valid (I mean by valid: it's XML and
each element (p, li, ol, ul, dt, dd, dl) have thier right meanings)

I just guess, and hope I'm right: m:explanation text is
nothing but a textual/readable content intentded for "human" use.

Isn't it?

Innovate Humanum Est

Received on Thursday, 11 October 2007 12:45:14 UTC