- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 07:18:45 -0800
- To: "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Maybe a good word for the bag of bits that some are calling a message would be better served being called a representation? This would show a clean relationship between the web and web services at the messaging level. The TAG's work [1] isn't very far along, but it shows a start. And if we don't a call a "message" a representation, then we probably ought to provide some explanation on how a message and a representation relate. It might be as simple as "A SOAP Message is defined as a representation that contains a SOAP envelope, binding specific additional data, and has the application/soap+xml content type". Cheers, Dave http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/#representations > -----Original Message----- > From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org > [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On > Behalf Of Jean-Jacques Moreau > Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 12:30 AM > To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com > Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org > Subject: Re: What is a SOAP Message > > > > I also make the same distinction between messages and envelopes. > I have seen the confusion made in other groups as well. So, > > +1 to your suggested clarification. > > Jean-Jacques. > > noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote: > > During today's AFTF telcon we got into a discussion as to > exactly what a > > SOAP Message is. Gudge pointed out that in several places > in part 1 it > > says or strongly implies that a SOAP Message >is< an XML > Envelope Infoset. > > I had always assumed we were clear that the "term message" > refers not just > > to the envelope, but to a set of information which includes > at minimum the > > envelope, but often other information as well (e.g., the destination > > address, WebMethod, and Action tend to be sent out of band > in SOAP http). > > [...] > > > > I think it's useful and appropriate to separate the term > "message" from > > "envelope". [...] I think we should consider clarifying our > terminology. >
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2003 10:21:01 UTC