Re: Rework on SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 and 3

 Gudge, Noah, good work. 8-)
 I have a few remarks though, some of them may be on stuff that 
was not introduced by your rewrite.

 - Subsection 2.1.1 should go to section 3, I think, no need to
be this concrete in section 2; same for typing of identifiers or
type names.

 - Is subsection 2.2.1 needed? It is no longer needed to
distinguish between single reference and multi reference nodes.  
Before, this was necessary for the so-called "independent"  
elements which went away.
 On the other hand, 2.2.1 together with rules in 3.1.1 and the 
sentence after the two rules effectively disallow serializing as 
"independent" elements, for example
 <foo ref="1"/>
 <blah id="1">42</blah>
 If we go there (and I do like it very much), it needs to be
explicitly mentioned somewhere (possibly the primer) for this is
a significant difference from SOAP 1.1.

 - Note that the definition of 'position' restricts generic
compound types: In 2.1.1, position is defined as total order on
all the edges outbound edges of a given node. This removes the B3
compound types from my email [1] and makes generic compound types
almost equivalent to arrays, only the accessor name information
is carried from serialization to the graph.

 - Editorial: Capitalize Encoding where used as the name of the
encoding present in the SOAP spec.

 - Why do we have the distinction between locally scoped and
globally scoped identifiers? Especially section 3.1 terminology
is weird since the type of identifier is QName. You have a lot of 
text in the rewrite that just makes sure everyone gets the 
distinction between locally and globally scoped names, and then 
you do nothing with the distinction. 8-)

 - Section 3.1.3 is not from deserialization perspective, while 
3.1 implies it will be.

 - Old version was IMHO better readable. It flowed. I'll try to 
think about a reorganization of the rewrite to improve this 
aspect (at least as I perceive it).

 So the summary would be: I like the way this rewrite moves us
away from XML Schema. Before accepting it though, we have to
agree that forbidding the so-called "independent element on top
of serialization" (see my second remark) and the restriction of
generic compound types (see my third remark) is what we want to
do. I vote yes on all. 8-)

 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Martin Gudgin wrote:

 > At the recent face-to-face Noah and I took an action item to work on SOAP
 > 1.2 Part 2: Section 2 - Data Model and Section 3 - SOAP Encoding. The brief
 > was to clarify the relationship between those sections and XML Schema. This
 > work has now been done, at least to first draft stage.
 > 
 > An xml version of the spec can be found at[1]
 > An html version can be found at[2]
 > 
 > These documents are provided so that the XML Protocol Working Group and
 > others can read the updated sections and provide comments and other
 > feedback. Please note that at this stage the rewritten sections DO NOT
 > represent consensus from the XML Protocl Working Group. Rather they are work
 > in progress on out way to consensus.
 > 
 > Regards
 > 
 > Martin Gudgin
 > 
 > [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part2-mjg.xml
 > [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part2-mjg.html
 > 
 >

Received on Friday, 15 March 2002 11:31:29 UTC