LC Issue 226 Resolution

Paul,

On 10 July 2002, the XMLP WG discussed the issue [1] you raised [2].

"... The problems with this are well-documented, but the tools do not 
really support a URI-centric mode of operation and (I fear) will not unless 
the specification makes clear that they are mistaken. ..."

We propose to close this issue without further changes to the specs because:

1.  Details of URI encoding are out-of-scope of the Normative parts of SOAP 
1.2 [6],
2.  The Primer provides non-normative discussion in section 3.1.3 [3], 
which appears to address your concern,
3.  Part 2 also seems to address your concern [7], and
4.  The Web Services Architecture or Description WGs may be more receptive 
of further work on this issue

Also see [4], where it looks like the TAG had an action to ask WSAWG to 
address this (or a very similar) concern.

 From the IRC log of that TAG call [5],
20:05:26 [Ian]
Action DC: Write up architecture concern.

More recently, looks like the TAG may be working through the WSDWG [8][9].

WSD WG has it as issue #61 [10].

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues.html#x226
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002Jun/0013.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part0-20020626/#L3677
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jun/0072
[5] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/10-tagmem-irc.html
[6] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part2-20020626/#RPCWebArguments
[7] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part2-20020626/#RPCResourceRetrieval
[8] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/24-tag-summary.html#wsa-get
[9] http://www.w3.org/2002/07/08-tag-summary#formatting
[10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2002Jun/0167.html

If you disagree that the issue is indeed resolved, please contact the XMLP 
WG asap.

Thank you.

Paul Denning

Received on Tuesday, 16 July 2002 17:26:10 UTC