- From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
- Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 16:12:30 -0500
- To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Joe Lapp - wherever you are..., I am responding on behalf of the XMLP WG regarding your issue #21 [1] which cites your email [2] regarding "Issues with Packaging Application Payloads". Specifically, we'd like to be able to close this issue citing this response with your approval. The SOAP1.2 parts 1 and 2 specifications have been (re)defined in terms of the XML Infoset representation of a SOAP message. This change from the v1.1 spec is significant because it provides a separation from the XML 1.0 serialization of a SOAP message. The serialization of a SOAP message is now manifested as part of the binding to an underlying protocol, which gets to specify the manner by which the serialization of the XML Infoset representation of a message is to be handled. This has relevance to your issue in the following manner. First that the serialization need not necessarily be as an XML 1.0 document. Other serializations are made possible, although the SOAP1.2 specifications provide as normative only the XML 1.0 serialization cited in the HTTP binding for SOAP. Secondly, with regards to the well-formedness aspect of a SOAP envelope with application data is based on a statement made in the XML Infoset specification [3]: "An XML document has an information set if it is well-formed and satisfies the namespace constraints described below. There is no requirement for an XML document to be valid in order to have an information set." This statement implies that a SOAP message serialized to/from an XML Infoset representation from/to an XML 1.0 representation will be a well-formed XML document, including any application data. This should address your concerns regarding the potential non-well-formedness of any application data within the SOAP envelope. Of course, it is always possible that a poorly crafted SOAP implementation could send a non-wellformed message, but that could apply to any aspect of the SOAP envelope, not just application data. However, it is not the responsibility of the WG to address improper implementation. Messages which cannot be processed cannot be processed. Finally, the WG has agreed to cite (as a non-normative reference) the SOAP Messages with Attachments Note [4] as an example of other possible bindings for SOAP. In addition, the WG Chair has committed to inclusion in the re-charter of the XMLP WG a top-level deliverable that addresses the handling of binary data and/or "attachments" as the first order of business for the WG following the completion of the SOAP1.2 specification. Cheers, Chris [1]http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x21 [2]http://discuss.develop.com/archives/wa.exe?A2=ind0008&L=soap&F=&S=&P=41789 [3]http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP-attachments [4]http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/PR-xml-infoset-20010810/
Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2001 16:16:45 UTC