RE: Problem with resolution of Issue 221

I would tend to disagree with this view of senders. As part of the SOAP
processing model we make a fairly clear distinction between which parts
of the SOAP envelope that are significant to a SOAP processor and which
parts are not. In particular, I think we make it clear that there is a
difference between data carried within header blocks and within the body
as compared to data carried outside these places. IMO, this applies to
all senders regardless of their role as intermediary or as initial

Given this, I think we should look at the problem in a slightly
different manner by ensuring that we have a clear rule for separation of
concerns regarding which data we care about and which we don't with
respect to SOAP processing. In particular, I think we 

* want to be strict about what can be present outside header blocks and
the body

* have little to say about data inside header blocks and the body.

I think this distinction is described already in the SOAP processing
model and clarified as part of the resolution of issue 176 [1]. Here we

* For comment IIs and PIIIs outside header blocks and the body we don't
guarantee that they will be forwarded by intermediaries. From [2]:

"A SOAP sender MUST NOT include any other child information items
including element, processing instruction, unexpanded entity reference,
character, and comment information items. A SOAP receiver MUST ignore
such information items and a SOAP intermediary MAY discard them if
relaying a SOAP message."

* include the notion that PIIIs and comment IIs are allowed within
header blocks and the body. From [3]:

"The changes in 4 and 4.2 need to be worded carefully to make sure 
they're not taken to preclude character info, comments (and I suppose 
PI's) within header and body blocks."

I see this as an editorial change clarifying section 5.

Thank you,



Received on Sunday, 25 August 2002 13:51:43 UTC