RE: Combined list of SOAP 1.2 specific issues

Thanks for the breakdown, Jean-Jacques. I'll now correlate these 
the responsible person (if one exists for the issue). I can probably 
get to this sometime tomorrow (Sunday).

Mike

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr]
>Sent: July 05, 2002 12:00 PM
>To: Web Service Description
>Cc: Mahan Michael (NRC/Boston); Glen Daniels; Dietmar Gaertner
>Subject: Combined list of SOAP 1.2 specific issues
>
>
>
>I took a todo today to provide a combined list of SOAP 1.2
>specific issues. Here is that list.
>
>Jean-Jacques.
>
>----------------------
>SOAP 1.2 specific issues
>
>General
>
>23        General support for SOAP 1.2
>32        SOAP 1.1 backward compatibility support?
>40        Current SOAP binding too complex
>39,63   Implicit dependency between SOAP binding and abstract
>portType
>
>Features/Modules/MEPs
>
>14       Support for SOAP 1.2 features [AI jjm]
>61       Support for SOAP 1.2 SOAP-Response MEP
>26       Relationship between input/output and SOAP MEPs
>
>Binding/Underlying Protocol
>
>28       Identification of SOAP underlying protocol (HTTP, SMTP,
>...)
>54       Allow any HTTP method [also applies to HTTP]
>18       What is the default for soap:transport?
>1, 2      SOAPAction
>55        Need a way to set HTTP headers [also applies to HTTP]
>
>Targeting/Endpoint
>
>31       Define soap:address directly in soap:binding [issue
>needs clarification]
>
>Message
>
>29       soap:body parts [issue needs clarification]
>5, 30   soap:encodingStyle [proposal already available]
>
>Faults
>
>62       Specify a specific fault code to be returned
>
>Data Model/Encoding
>
>25      Unclear relationship between XML Schemas and SOAP data
>model
>3        Arrays currently dependent on SOAP 1.1
>
>RPCs
>
>27      Style="rpc" does not map well to SOAP 1.2 RPCs
>
>
>
>Editorial
>
>51       Asymmetry between soap:body and soap:header
>48       Is soap:body's "use" AII optional or not?
>20       Is soap:header's "part" AII of type NMTOKEN or NMTOKENS?
>
>19       Is soap:headerfault really optional?
>45       Is soap:fault's "use" AII optional or not?
>44       soap:fault's "name" AII not defined in schema
>47       Is soap:operation optional or not?
>46       Is soap:transport optional or not?
>49       Inconsistency in soap:header definition
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Saturday, 6 July 2002 21:41:50 UTC