- From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:02:36 -0400
- To: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Cc: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
On Saturday, Sep 7, 2002, at 17:41 US/Eastern, Martin Gudgin wrote: > > I see no reason why the descendants of a body element be required to > conform to the restrictions on the body element itself > +1, I'm also not convinced that we should mandate qualification of the body child elements. What are we trying to achieve with this restriction (other than symmetry with header blocks) ? Marc. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com] >> Sent: 07 September 2002 04:08 >> To: Martin Gudgin >> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org >> Subject: 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]? >> >> Thanks. >> >> [1] >> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part1-> > 20020626/#structinterpbodies >> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part1-20020626/#soapbody >> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part1-20020626/#soapbodyel >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 >> IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 >> One Rogers Street >> Cambridge, MA 02142 >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com> >> Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org >> 08/31/2002 06:38 PM >> >> >> To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org> >> 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. >> >> Gudge >> >> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x356 >> >> >> >> >> > > -- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> XML Technology Center, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Monday, 9 September 2002 12:02:38 UTC