Re: Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements as children of Body

Before we loosened up the rules for processing bodies [1] I would have 
said "definitely MUST", as the element names are key to the processing.  I 
think that's still somewhat implied by: 

"An ultimate SOAP receiver MUST correctly process the immediate children of 
the SOAP body (see 5.3 SOAP Body). However, with the exception of SOAP 
faults (see 5.4 SOAP Fault),..."

But arguable undercut by:

"...Part 1 of this specification (this document) mandates no particular 
structure or interpretation of these elements, and provides no standard 
means for specifying the processing to be done."

So, in this new world, I can see it either way, but lean toward MUST. 

Interestingly, [2] makes clear that body child element names are qualified, and [3] makes 
clear that grandchildren need not be.  Having gone that far, aren't we 
being a bit vague about greatgrandchildren and other descendents.  in [3] 
should we not say, that the elements MAY be qualified, and may have among 
their descendents other elements that conform to the rules in [3]?



Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142

"Martin Gudgin" <>
Sent by:
08/31/2002 06:38 PM

        To:     <>
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        Issue 356: Allow unqualified elements as children of Body

We have two choices for this issue[1]

1.  Stick with status-quo, child elements of soap:Body MUST be qualified

2.  We can relax the MUST to a SHOULD.

I have a preference for the former and propose we close the issue with
no action.



Received on Friday, 6 September 2002 23:00:17 UTC