- From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 11:26:42 -0500
- To: "'Martin Gudgin'" <marting@develop.com>, Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
+1 !! > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Gudgin [mailto:marting@develop.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 10:38 AM > To: Christopher Ferris; xml-dist-app@w3.org > Subject: Re: Issue 192 & R803 > > > Radical suggestion: > > In the fault case ditch Body entirely, and replace it with Fault. > > <soap:Envelope xmlns:soap='http://www.w3.org/2001/12/soap-envelope' > > <soap:Header> > ... > </soap:Header> > <soap:Fault> > <faultcode>soap:Sender</faultcode> > <faultstring>You send bad stuff</faultstring> > </soap:Fault> > </soap:Envelope> > > Gudge > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com> > To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org> > Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 4:20 PM > Subject: Re: Issue 192 & R803 > > > > +1 > > > > Marc Hadley wrote: > > > > > Sorry for the slow response, catching up on email slowly. > > > > > > I think Noah has identified an inconsistency here and we > should open a > > > new issue to make sure we address it. > > > > > > Marc. > > > > > > noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: > > > > > >> Chris Ferris writes: > > >> > > >> > > >>>> the .../ultimateReceiver role MUST be capable > > >>>> of "correctly processing" the contents of the SOAP > Body EII which I > > >>>> interpret as meaning, if the child of the SOAP Body > EII is a SOAP > > >>>> Fault EII, it is a fault, and I process it as such > unless there is > > >>>> some SOAP Header block telling me otherwise. That is the SOAP > > >>>> processing model as I understand it. > > >>>> > > >> > > >> That was true, but not any more I'm afraid. The latest > editors' draft > > >> says with respect to body processing [1]: > > >> > > >> "An ultimate SOAP receiver MUST correctly process the immediate > > >> children of the SOAP body (see 5.3 SOAP Body). However, > Part 1 of this > > >> specification (this document) mandates no particular structure or > > >> interpretation of these elements, and provides no > standard means for > > >> specifying the processing to be done." > > >> > > >> We introduced this formulation during the great debate over body > > >> interpretation. In the non-fault case, I think I am > happy with it. I > > >> think it also implies that ascribing semantics to a body > containing a > > >> fault is optional (or, conversely, you might view the > first and second > > >> sentences as contradictory in this respect.) > > >> > > >> In the case of faults, first of all, it contradicts the > rest of the > > >> specification in claiming that we mandate no structure > for the body. > > >> I suspect we should open an issue at least on that. My > guess is that > > >> (with apologies in advance to Mark Baker) many of us had > assumed that > > >> we wanted to mandate not just the structure, but also the > > >> interpretation in the case that a fault was received. > Maybe the issue > > >> should be expanded to include that question as well, > though knowing > > >> Mark's views, it may not be easy to achieve quick consensus on a > > >> resolution. > > >> > > >> > > >> [1] > > >> > http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part1.html#stru ctinterpbodies > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 > >> IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 > >> One Rogers Street > >> Cambridge, MA 02142 > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2002 11:27:18 UTC