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

Jacek Kopecky wrote:

> Noah,
> I think you may have a point, therefore now I can see it equally both
>ways - moving the mention in 2.1.1 or keeping it in RPC. Using SHOULD
>could be OK, as I said there's no interop problems involved (because the
>XML form is the interface) and a MUST would be unenforcable here.
Not only unenforcable but undesirable in certain cases, FWIW:

If I have two language environments visible to each other via some 
common language binding, and these languages have already-established 
ways of dealing with differences in legal naming syntax to map between 
one language and another, you would hope that invoking SOAP on the same 
objects from the two languages would map to the same set of names 
underneath, at least I think I would.  This is not likely to be possible 
were the constructs as seen in each language forced to map using only 
this other mapping that did not take the built-in mapping between the 
languages into account -- if we even had a way to enforce it, as you 
point out.  So I am happy with SHOULD, too.

Ray Whitmer

Received on Friday, 6 September 2002 16:03:46 UTC