Re: [soapbuilders] Publication of the first W3C Working Drafts of SOAP Version 1.2 and of the XML Protocol Abstract Model

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Kulchenko" <>
To: <>; <>
Cc: "Hugo Haas" <>
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 1:31 AM
Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Publication of the first W3C Working Drafts of
SOAP Version 1.2 and of the XML Protocol Abstract Model

> Hi, All!
> New spec draft needs new issue list, right? :))
> Here is the list of what I can see after the first reading (i'm not
> subscribed to, can someone forward message there
> if it's correct).
> 1. mustUnderstand is fixed to allow '1/0/true/false' (boolean in
> schema), but specification explicitly says only about '1' and '0'

Thanks. I've put this on the editors 'todo' list

> 2. Example 7 specifies faultcode as Name instead of QName

Yes, should be env:MustUnderstand, sorry. On the editors 'todo' list.

> 3. Spec uses xsi:null="1" where xsi:nil="true" should be used (5.1.9
> is one example). And it's only "true", not boolean "true/1".

On the editors 'todo' list.

> 4. No clarification about "top level of serialization" (did I miss
> it?)

What kind of clarification were you looking for?

> 5. 5.1.8 says: 'A SOAP array member MAY contain a "enc:offset"' and
> use enc:offset and enc:position in the same context, whereas refers
> to [ Partially Transmitted Arrays] which says about enc:offset
> on Array element itself. Schema shows enc:offset on Array element
> also.

OK, I think this is an area that needs some clean up. I think it should work
like this;

1.    enc:offset appears on the array element only.
2.    enc:position appears on the array members only.

I don't think offset makes sense on array members.
I don't think position makes sense on the array itself unless that array is
in fact a member of an outer array.

Open question, is position absolute or relative to offset? I prefer the

> 6. Schema defines root attribute as boolean, whereas spec says only
> about "0/1" as values.

Thanks. on the editors 'todo' list

> 7. Appendix C says: 'The upgrade extension contains an ordered list
> of namespace identifiers of SOAP envelopes that the SOAP node
> supports in the order most to least preferred.', but doesn't give any
> examples on how to do it for more than one envelope supported and I
> can't figure it out from the text.

Thanks. Hopefully we will add an example in the next WD.

> 8. D.2 Schema changes doesn't reflect changes from ut-type to anyType
> (anySimpleType).

The ur-type didn't change. All that happened was the schema-for-schemas now
has a definition of the ur-type called 'anyType'. That said I should have
noted in the table that the element decl and complex type named 'ur-type'
had been replaced with an element decl called 'anyType'. On the editors todo

> Best wishes, Paul.

Thanks very much for the feedback

Martin Gudgin

Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2001 08:52:46 UTC