- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 08:31:35 -0700
- To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: XML Distributed Applications List <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Will SOAP 1.2 implementations recognise the namespace of SOAP 1.3 envelopes? I'd think this should be a situation that generates a Fault... On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 05:54:30AM +0100, Williams, Stuart wrote: > Hi Mark, > > I think that there may be two cases of 'incorrect' that may need to be > further distinguished. > > 1) Namespaces (on the root element) that are completely unrecognised. > 2) Namespaces that are recognised but whose semantics are not implemented > the receiving node. > > In both cases the 'incorrect' namespace may be that of a previous SOAP > envelope version. IMO it is only in the latter case that a node should > consider generating a response (eg. a SOAP Fault). > > In the first case, the recipient node has not made positive determination > that the received message is a SOAP message (of any envelope version). In > this case the generation and subsequent transmission of a SOAP fault could > only serve to compound the failure if the recipient of the fault does not > recognise the envelope version of the response. > > ie. > In the 1st case I think that the appropriate action is indeed to discard the > message received with the 'incorrect' namespace. > > In the 2nd case it is reasonable to deduce that the sender is a SOAP Node > compliant with some version of SOAP and there may be appropriate action to > take other than discarding the message. > > > Regards > > Stuart > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net] > > Sent: 10 September 2001 23:49 > > To: XML Distributed Applications List > > Subject: Re: discarding incorrect namespaces > > > > > > > > > > I don't remember it either; I based my comments on the pre-split > > Working Draft. > > > > On the face of it, this looks better, except it still says 'It MUST > > discard messages that have incorrect namespace information' which > > conflicts with the envelope versioning Fault, IIRC. > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 02:25:07PM -0700, Hugo Haas wrote: > > > Hi Mark. > > > > > > I was rereading the spec and noticed that this had been changed. > > > > > > * Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> [2001-08-17 14:14-0700] > > > > Finally, considering our versioning model, does it make sense to > > > > upgrade > > > > > > > > "A SOAP application SHOULD include the proper SOAP > > namespace on all > > > > elements and attributes defined by SOAP in messages that it > > > > generates." > > > > > > > > to MUST, and strike > > > > > > > > "... MAY process SOAP messages without SOAP namespaces as > > though they had > > > > the correct SOAP namespaces." > > > > > > > > This is in the context of all SOAP namespaces, not just > > the envelope, > > > > but it seems prudent to clarify in some fashion. > > > > > > Section 3 now reads[1]: > > > > > > A SOAP node MUST ensure that all element information items and > > > attribute information items in messages that it generates are > > > correctly namespace qualified. > > > > > > Is that something we agreed on? I don't remember discussing this. I > > > like this change, but I would like to check that everybody > > is aware of > > > and happy with it. That would resolve issue 135[2]. > > > > > > 1. > http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/08/29/soap12-part1.html#reltoxml > > 2. http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x135 > > -- > > Hugo Haas - W3C > > mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/ - tel:+1-617-452-2092 > > > > -- > Mark Nottingham > http://www.mnot.net/ > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 12 September 2001 11:31:43 UTC