- From: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
- Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 10:11:05 -0400
- To: Herve Ruellan <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
- CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Herve, Yes, thanks for the feedback. I was struggling with that very aspect myself. Cheers, Chris Herve Ruellan wrote: > > christopher ferris wrote: > > > ... > > > > > A SOAP message MUST NOT impose any XML schema processing (assessment and > > validation) requirement on the part of any receiving SOAP node. > > Therefore, SOAP REQUIRES that all Attribute Information Items, whether > > specified in this specification or whether they belong to a foreign > > namespace be carried in the serialized SOAP envelope. > > > > > ... > > Chris, > > I'm a bit unconfortable with your second sentence. It may induce that > you must put in your SOAP message every Attribute Information Items you > know about, whether your need them or not. > > For this reason I would make the difference between two cases when > defining an Attribute Information Item (in the SOAP spec or outside): > > 1. The Attribute Information Item is not present. > This absence has a meaning for the receiver and this meaning may be the > same as if the Attribute Information Item was present with a particular > value. > > 2. The Attribute Information Item is present. > In this case, the meaning of this Attribute Information Item depends on > its value. > > For example, the absence of the mustUnderstand attribute has the same > > meaning as its presence with the false value. > > But if I define a encryptionMode attribute, the absence of this attribute > > means that the SOAP message is not encrypted whereas its presence means > > that the SOAP message is encrypted and gives the type of encryption used. > > Hervé.
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2001 10:11:08 UTC