RE: New issue: relayed infoset inconsistency

Gudge:

Marc's proposal makes sense to me.  I can't quite tell if you're endorsing 
it, or whether you feel that the "original resolution"  points some sort 
of better direction.  If so, I'm not quite clear what it would be. Thanks.

------------------------------------------------------------------
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
01/14/2003 12:05 PM

 
        To:     "Marc Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        RE: New issue: relayed infoset inconsistency



IIRC the original resolution that resulted in 2.7.4 had some text about
applications that relied on the lexical form and said SHOULD instead of
MUST

Gudge

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Hadley [mailto:marc.hadley@sun.com] 
> Sent: 14 January 2003 16:30
> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: New issue: relayed infoset inconsistency
> 
> 
> 
> There is an inconsistency between section 2.7.4 (SOAP Intermediaries 
> and Relayed Infoset) in part 1[1] and the descriptions of the SOAP 
> mustUnderstand, role and relay attributes.
> 
> Section 2.7.4 states that "All XML infoset properties of a 
> message MUST 
> be preserved with the following exceptions: [long list]" but doesn't 
> mention anything about the mustUnderstand, role and relay attributes.
> 
> However, in contradiction to this:
> 
> (i) Section 5.2.2[2] (SOAP role Attribute) states that 'If 
> relaying the 
> message, a SOAP intermediary MAY omit a SOAP role  attribute 
> information item if its value is 
> "http://www.w3.org/2002/12/soap-envelope/role/ultimateReceiver"'.
> 
> (ii) Section 5.2.3[3] (SOAP mustUnderstand Attribute) states that 'If 
> relaying the message, a SOAP intermediary MAY substitute 
> "true" for the 
> value "1", or "false" for "0". In addition, a SOAP intermediary MAY 
> omit a SOAP mustUnderstand  attribute information item if its 
> value is 
> "false"'.
> 
> (iii) Section 5.2.4[4] (SOAP relay Attribute) states that 'If 
> relaying 
> the message, a SOAP intermediary MAY substitute "true" for the value 
> "1", or "false" for "0". In addition, a SOAP intermediary MAY omit a 
> SOAP relay attribute information item if its value is "false"'.
> 
> I think this was an oversight when section 2.7.4 was 
> constructed and to 
> restore consistency I propose that we add three bullets to 
> the list in 
> section 2.7.4 as follows:
> 
> 19 SOAP role attribute information items that are present in the 
> [attributes] property of SOAP Header block element information items 
> may be transformed as described in 5.2.2 SOAP role Attribute.
> 
> 20 SOAP mustUnderstand attribute information items that are 
> present in 
> the [attributes] property of SOAP Header block element information 
> items may be transformed as described in 5.2.3 SOAP mustUnderstand 
> Attribute.
> 
> 21 SOAP relay attribute information items that are present in the 
> [attributes] property of SOAP Header block element information items 
> may be transformed as described in 5.2.4 SOAP relay Attribute.
> 
> Comments ?
> Marc.
> 
> [1] 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/CR-soap12-part1-20021219/#soapinterminfoset
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/CR-soap12-part1-20021219/#soaprole
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/CR-soap12-part1-20021219/#soapmu
> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/CR-soap12-part1-20021219/#soaprelay
> 
> --
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
> Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2003 14:42:17 UTC