- From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 13:49:02 -0400
- To: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Cc: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Herve Ruellan" <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
On Friday, Oct 18, 2002, at 12:57 US/Eastern, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote: > > I agree that this would be a consistent model but I think it would > require changes to the current model based on qualified names described > in part 1, section 2.8: > > "The version of a SOAP message is identified by the qualified name of > the child element information item of the document information item. A > SOAP Version 1.2 message has a child element information item of the > document information item with a [local name] of Envelope and a > [namespace name] of "http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope" (see 5.1 > SOAP Envelope)." > I'd be fine with changing this. > If I recall, the reason for going with a qualified name was to clarify > that > > <S:HenriksEnvelope xmlns:S="http://www.w3.org/2002/06/soap-envelope"> > > would result in a S:VersionMismatch and not a S:Sender fault. A sender fault would seem more logical here - the envelope is malformed. > Using a > qualified name could also be seen as being more consistent with out > treatment of header blocks. > I don't follow you, can you explain ? Marc. >> I disagree, the namespace of the envelope defines the version >> of SOAP - >> any future version of SOAP that added new elements or changed element >> names would also have to change the namespace. The upgrade >> header block >> just declares support for a particular version and hence only the >> namespace is required - claiming to support that version means >> supporting changed or multiple root elements so there's no need to >> mention them explicitly. > > Henrik > > [1] > http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part1.xml#envvermodel > > -- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> XML Technology Center, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Friday, 18 October 2002 13:49:28 UTC