Re: Issue 192 & R803

Yes, I was thinking along those lines when I made the proposal. Seems very
clear to me.

Gudge

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Ferris" <chris.ferris@sun.com>
To: "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Cc: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>; <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 5:32 PM
Subject: 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 tha
t
> >>>>> (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 11:39:33 UTC