- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 08:23:45 -0800
- To: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
- Cc: <MJones@NetSilicon.com>
I may misunderstand the intent but it seems that the discussion hints at XML schema not being useful for formally defining the structure of the envelope and that we instead should be using EBNF. If the question really is to use schema or not then I think that is a more fundamental discussion that seems to apply to more than just SOAP. Henrik Frystyk Nielsen mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com >-----Original Message----- >From: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com [mailto:Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com] >Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 07:24 >To: xml-dist-app@w3.org >Cc: MJones@NetSilicon.com >Subject: Formalism in SOAP spec > > >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 11:24:36 UTC