- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:28:36 -0500 (EST)
- To: pauld@mitre.org (Paul Denning)
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Paul, > In my view, "Communicating parties" refers to the applications that make > use of a SOAP processor at a SOAP node. The lack of a priori knowledge by > the communicating parties refers to a degree of transparency about the > underlying mechanisms used to transfer a SOAP envelope. It relates to the > concept of layering, and separation of interface from implementation, where > higher layers make use of an interface to lower layer mechanisms rather > than duplicate the functions of those lower layer mechanisms. If I interpreted that correctly, I respectfully disagree. My view of it is that it relates to the existence of shared application semantics. For example, I know that I can invoke the GET method on any URI with a HTTP URI scheme, or RETR on any URI with a FTP URI scheme, etc... This is a large part of the value of the generic interface provided by every application protocol. > The WSAWG charter's clause about "without third party agreement" gives us a > clue of the concern about a priori knowledge. An example of a third party > agreement would be if new SOAP features (SOAP header block namespaces, > bindings, message exchange patterns, encoding styles, and fault codes) > could not be used unless W3C approved them. This is NOT the case. No W3C > approval is needed to define such new features. Definition of such new > features without W3C knowledge will not necessarily break the compliance > with the SOAP 1.2 specification. Agreed, but we're not going to get very far (even to the point of worring about those issues you mention) without shared application semantics, IMO. > Based on the discussion above, I assert that the SOAP 1.2 specifications > meet the spirit of requirement R505 [1], and we can close issue 54 [2]. I'm glad, but do you accept my proposed text[1], or are you suggesting new text to replace it? (perhaps just followup on this one to xml-dist-app) > However, since this requirement appears to be a matter for the WSAWG [4], I > recommend that the concepts surrounding a priori knowledge be examined by > the WSAWG. The XMLP WG can open a new issue if the WSAWG determines that > SOAP needs to address some aspect of it. Good idea, thanks. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002Mar/0020.html MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Monday, 11 March 2002 13:24:17 UTC