Re: Issue 192 & R803

+1

we can also be explicit in the schema.

<xs:element name="Envelope" type="tns:Envelope"/>
   <xs:complexType name="Envelope">
     <xs:sequence>
       <xs:element ref="tns:Header" minOccurs="0"/>
       <xs:choice>
	<xs:element ref="tns:Body"/>
	<xs:element ref="tns:Fault"/>
       </xs:choice>
     </xs:sequence>
     <xs:anyAttribute namespace="##other" processContents="lax"/>
   </xs:complexType>
</xs:element>

It gets around having to say anything about what goes in
the Body element.

I like this proposal.

Chris

Marc Hadley wrote:

> +1, good idea !
> 
> The Body EII is pretty redundant when a fault is carried since: "a SOAP 
> Fault MUST appear as a direct child of the SOAP body and MUST NOT appear 
> more than once within a SOAP Body". Unless we think that it's valuable 
> to be able to carry additional EIIs along with the fault. If so we don't 
> currently talk about what a node should do if the body contains stuff in 
> addition to a fault...
> 
> Marc.
> 
> Martin Gudgin wrote:
> 
>> 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#structinterpbodies 
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 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 11:33:17 UTC