Re: Proposal for resolution to issue 190

+1

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:

> HFN writes:
> 
> 
>>>If this is true then we might be able to close issue 190 by referring to
>>>
> 183.
> 
> Looks good to me.  I'd say "close it".  Thanks.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
> 03/19/2002 12:28 PM
> 
>  
>         To:     <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
>         cc: 
>         Subject:        Proposal for resolution to issue 190
> 
> 
> 
> Issue 190 [0] states that:
> 
> "In his recent comments on Part1, Noah raised the following
> issue : "[NRM12] We can't keep applications from requiring
> validation for their own content.  How can we keep applications
> from supplying defaults for their own purposes? We even do it for
> our own attributes.""
> 
> And proposes the following resolution
> 
> <proposal author="Noah">
> Except where this specification mandates a default value for an
> attribute, SOAP messages must carry explicit values for all
> attribute information items required by this recommendation.
> </proposal>
> 
> I think this has been already addressed by resolution to issue 183 [2]
> which caused the offending text to be rewritten [3] as follows:
> 
> "SOAP does not require any XML schema processing (assessment or
> validation) in order to establish the values or correctness of element
> and attribute information items defined by this specification. These
> information items must, unless stated otherwise, be carried explicitly
> in the transmitted SOAP message (see 3 SOAP Message Construct).
> 
> Specifications for the processing of application-defined data carried in
> a SOAP message but not defined by this specification may but NEED NOT
> call for additional validation of the SOAP message in conjunction with
> application-level processing. In such cases, the choice of schema
> language and/or validation technology is at the discretion of the
> application."
> 
> If this is true then we might be able to close issue 190 by referring to
> 183.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
> mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com
> 
> [0] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x190
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Mar/0134.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Feb/0186.html
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part1.html#reltoxml
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2002 14:41:48 UTC