- From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 10:24:00 -0500
- To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
- Cc: MJones@NetSilicon.com
Note that the following comments end with a call for more formalism and precision in the specfication. While not a specific endorsement of the current proposed binding framework, it does appear that at least some of our "customers" are looking for specifications that are more precise and formal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 Lotus Development Corp. Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Forwarded by Noah Mendelsohn/CAM/Lotus on 11/14/01 10:22 AM ----- "Jones, Matthew" <MJones@NetSilicon To: <xmlp-comments@w3.org> .com> cc: (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/CAM/Lotus) Sent by: Subject: Comments on the SOAP 1.2 Specification xmlp-comments-requ est@w3.org 11/09/01 01:13 PM I have the following comments on the SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Adjuncts document 1. There is no grammar for describing the structure of a SOAP Message. There should be a rigorous definition of the structure of the document. The definition of the structure should include the standard encoding. The document http://www.w3.org/2001/09/soap-encoding is not adequate. The preferred strategy would be an EBNF grammar. I do not feel the Schema is up to the task and since a SOAP document contains fragments there is circularity or ambiguity issue. 2. Section 4.4.2 does not describe how to encode arrays. The first example in that section shows a schema and an xml document conforming to that schema. It has nothing to do with SOAP encoding. There is no reason to ever put an XML Schema in this section it only confuses the issue, and there is no motivation or explanation why they are there. What should be there is a rigorous specification of the various ways that an array can be defined uses that standard encoding. Providing multiple examples and lazy and doesn't belong in the core of a specification (an appendix maybe). If you can't figure out how to provided a rigorous specification using, for example, and EBNF then it is not ready for standardization. Virtually every section has a similar problem to sections 4.4.2. I you are serious about providing a useful specification then you will rewrite the specification to make it a formal specification rather than a document full of commentary and examples. Matthew Jones mjones@netsilicon.com
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2001 10:49:02 UTC