- From: Kumeda <kumeda@atc.yamatake.co.jp>
- Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 10:29:39 +0900
- To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Dear Henrik Frystyk Nielsen, First of all, thank you very much for preparing a nice starting document for the binding framework. The following are my comments on the document: 1) I think it is better to move HTTP status code listings found in section 3.1.1.x to an independent section, as they are not a part of a Requesting SOAP node, rather, they are a part of a Responding SOAP node. 2) I think status code 202 is useful and required. Suppose that the ultimate SOAP receiver is a data logger that collects data from a remote sensor through a dial-up telephone network. It is designed to start its data gathering upon receiving a SOAP request to do so. For this kind of node, it may take too long to prepare a complete (with logged data from the remote sensor) SOAP response with code 200. Rather, it is more convenient for the node to respond with a 202 and implicitly inform the client of the successful receiption of the request. 3) According to RFC-2626, a message body of a 204 response shall not contain a message-body. Therefore, the property value of this response shall be empty. The current text implies that an empty SOAP Envelop is included, which for me is not "empty" but has <env:Envelop />. 4) I believe the binding framework should provide a clear guidance on the use of 400 and 500 codes. I propose to use 400 only for gramatical errors in a SOAP XML document, and all semantic erros shall be reported with 500. Best regards, Yasuo Kumeda > > Here is a slightly revised version [0] of the SOAP protocol binding > framework intended for SOAP 1.2 part 1, which incorporates feedback > received from the WG. The previous revision can be found at [1] and is > item (a) on David Fallside's list sent out for review [2]. No other > parts are provided here. Diffs between the two revisions are provided > [3]. > > Note the default disclaimer that the document has no status whatsoever > nor does it necessarily represent consensus within the TBTF or within > the XML Protocol WG as a whole. > > Henrik Frystyk Nielsen > mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com > > [0] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Dec/att-0008/01-SOAP > BindingFramework-01.html > [1] > http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/11/20/SOAP_Transport_Binding_Framework > .html > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Nov/0272.html > [3] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Dec/att-0008/02-SOAP > BindingFramework-00-01.diff > >
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2001 20:29:01 UTC