Re: Streaming and Well-Formedness

On Tuesday, Apr 1, 2003, at 13:20 US/Eastern, Mark Baker wrote:
>
> It's my understanding that you shouldn't be chucking mU faults, or 
> doing
> any processing for that matter, until the envelope has been determined
> to
> be well formed.
>
I'm not sure the spec says that, in fact:

"A message may contain or result in multiple errors during processing. 
Except where the order of detection is specifically indicated (as in 
2.4 Understanding SOAP Header Blocks), a SOAP node is at liberty to 
reflect any single fault from the set of possible faults prescribed for 
the errors encountered. The selection of a fault need not be predicated 
on the application of the "MUST", "SHOULD" or "MAY" keywords to the 
generation of the fault, with the exception that if one or more of the 
prescribed faults is qualified with the "MUST" keyword, then any one 
fault from the set of possible faults MUST be generated."

So I think my service would be at liberty to return a mustUnderstand 
fault even if the envelope turned out to be not well formed (provided 
of course a mustUnderstand fault was also appropriate)

Marc.

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Marc Hadley [mailto:Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 9:49 AM
>> To: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM
>> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Streaming and Well-Formedness
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree that there are cases where streaming is difficult, but there
>> are some cases where streaming is useful. E.g. a receiver can send a
>> mustUnderstand fault without waiting for the (potentially large) body
>> of the incoming message to be completely received.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Marc.
>
>
--
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.

Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2003 14:05:19 UTC