Proposal for issue 306: Is use of Appendix A optional?

Issue 306 states that

"It is unclear in the RPC Representation whether the links to  Appendix
A are a MUST (an identifier MUST be mapped to an XML  name using
Appendix A's algorithm) or a MAY (for a possible  mapping algorithm see
Appendix A)."

The reference to "Appendix A" should now be read as "Appendix B" [2] as
we have inserted the media type registration as appendix A. Appendix B
defines a mapping for converting application defined names to XML names.
It is only referenced from part 2 section 4.2 "RPC and SOAP Body" [3].

I think there are two parts of this problem:

1) Is the mapping required (MUST) or not (MAY)? 

2) Is the mapping useful in other places than section 4.2?

There is no doubt that Appendix B is normative meaning that it counts as
"specification" and not "example" or otherwise. My feeling is that *if*
one uses names in the RPC convention that cannot be represented directly
in XML then one MUST use Appendix B. 

However, given that the RPC convention uses the SOAP encoding, it seems
strange to me to have the reference to Appendix B in the RPC convention
and not as part of the SOAP encoding. I would therefore suggest that the
reference to appendix B is moved to section  3.1.3 "Encoding compound
values" [4] and not just in section 4.2 "RPC and SOAP Body" [3].

The proposal for closing issue 306 is therefore:

We clarify that the SOAP encoding requires use of the mapping defined in
appendix B for encoding names that can not directly be expressed in XML.
This requirement will be expressed in section 3.1.3 "Encoding compound
values" [4] something like this:

"Note: An edge label is an XML Schema Qualified Name (see [XML Schema
Part2]). Names that cannot be represented directly as XML Schema
Qualified Names MUST use the mapping defined in Appendix B. "Mapping
Application Defined Names to XML Names"."

The references in section 4.2 will be removed.


Henrik Frystyk Nielsen


Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 15:17:03 UTC