Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

685Re: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues

Expand Messages
  • Paul Kulchenko
    Mar 30, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi, Dave!

      One more little comment. If we stay with this URI

      http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/bdg

      I think it should have trailing slash, so correct version is:

      http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/bdg/

      Hope that's the latest one. Will take a break for 30 minutes :)).

      Best wishes, Paul.

      --- Dave Winer <dave@...> wrote:
      > OK, this is good enough for me.
      >
      > For the record, I explicitly suggested to Don and to Andrew that
      > they raise
      > their issues here, where the work is going on.
      >
      > Thanks Simon, as usual for your clarity..
      >
      > Dave
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: "Simon Fell" <sfell@...>
      > To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
      > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 3:34 PM
      > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues
      >
      >
      > > based on [1], I think that this is right thing, in particular the
      > sentence
      > >
      > > "In addition, all URIs syntactically beginning with
      > > "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/" indicate conformance
      > with the
      > > SOAP encoding rules defined in section 5 (though with potentially
      > tighter
      > > rules added)."
      > >
      > > So, making the encodingStyle be
      > http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/bdg
      > > as per Paul's suggestion seems to be entirely correct. AFAICS,
      > the BDG
      > > encoding is a subset of the section 5 encoding, If it isn't, then
      > there
      > > probably should be some other URI for this. (I guess this is the
      > crux of
      > the
      > > issue). Unfortunately, Don didn't name specifics when he said it
      > wasn't
      > > section 5.
      > >
      > > Cheers
      > > Simon
      > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP/#_Toc478383495
      > >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      > > From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@...]
      > > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 3:26 PM
      > > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues
      > >
      > >
      > > My concern is that someone could say "BDG is not SOAP 1.1." If
      > changing
      > the
      > > URL enables that then I'm against it. If changing the URL doesn't
      > in any
      > way
      > > detract from its SOAPy goodness then let's go. Andrew's and Don's
      > response
      > > makes me wonder what they're up to. I thought we were doing the
      > right
      > thing.
      > > I tried to make it clear that implementing the full spec was not
      > a
      > > possibility for UserLand. Can't speak for any other developers.
      > Dave
      > >
      > >
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: "Paul Kulchenko" <paulclinger@...>
      > > To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
      > > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 3:19 PM
      > > Subject: Re: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues
      > >
      > >
      > > > Hi, Dave!
      > > >
      > > > Yes, it should address it. At least that's exactly what Keith
      > was
      > > > talking about. I would rather disagree with Don, but his
      > concern is
      > > > right and since it's subset in my understanding it may be based
      > on
      > > > value for section 5 encodingStyle.
      > > >
      > > > Best wishes, Paul.
      > > >
      > > > --- Dave Winer <dave@...> wrote:
      > > > > Do you think that would address Andrew Layman's concern
      > expressed
      > > > > on the
      > > > > Developmentor SOAP mail list? I have to admit I found
      > Andrew's
      > > > > comments
      > > > > puzzling, I wasn't sure what the basis was for his concern.
      > Is it
      > > > > the URL
      > > > > that we use here? If that's the only problem, then let's
      > change it
      > > > > for sure.
      > > > > No problemmo. Dave
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > > > From: "Paul Kulchenko" <paulclinger@...>
      > > > > To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
      > > > > Cc: <jake@...>
      > > > > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 2:32 PM
      > > > > Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > > Hi, Simon and others!
      > > > > >
      > > > > > I have one more issue. Why don't alter encodingStyle to
      > > > > > http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/bdg or something
      > else?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > It's it perfectly spec conformant:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > 4.1.1. In addition, all URIs syntactically beginning with
      > > > > > "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/" indicate
      > conformance
      > > > > with
      > > > > > the SOAP encoding rules defined in section 5 (though with
      > > > > potentially
      > > > > > tighter rules added).
      > > > > >
      > > > > > That's exactly what we need.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > And it would specify that implementation support ONLY
      > subset if
      > > > > > required and at the same time doesn't change anything in
      > existent
      > > > > > implementations. It will also provide correct fallback if
      > > > > application
      > > > > > does NOT want to reply/support BDG.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Maybe not all application will handle this functionality
      > > > > > out-of-the-box, but it's easy to add and imho the way to
      > go.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Comments?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Best wishes, Paul.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > --- Simon Fell <sfell@...> wrote:
      > > > > > > These are two outstanding issues from my comments last
      > night.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > 1. in the types section, there is an xsd:base64, i think
      > this
      > > > > > > should be
      > > > > > > SOAP-ENC:base64, the SOAP specific base64 encoded type,
      > see
      > > > > section
      > > > > > > 5.2.3 of
      > > > > > > the SOAP 1.1 spec. From an implementation POV, it should
      > be
      > > > > easier
      > > > > > > to
      > > > > > > implement as you don't have to worry about line lengths
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > 2. Is the response example, an example of the response to
      > the
      > > > > > > example
      > > > > > > request ? If so, the request, has a namespace qualified
      > > > > methodname
      > > > > > > of
      > > > > > > <m:getStateName xmlns:m="http://www.soapware.org/">
      > whilst the
      > > > > > > response is
      > > > > > > unqualified <getStateNameResponse>. The namespace of the
      > > > > response
      > > > > > > should
      > > > > > > match the namespace of the request (This really should be
      > > > > mentioned
      > > > > > > in the
      > > > > > > response section)
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Cheers
      > > > > > > Simon
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
      > > > > > > From: Jake Savin [mailto:jake@...]
      > > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 2:00 PM
      > > > > > > To: soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
      > > > > > > Subject: [soapbuilders] Outstanding BDG issues
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Hello all,
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > I'm compiling a list of outstanding issues with the Busy
      > > > > Developers
      > > > > > > Guide.
      > > > > > > They're on this page:
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > http://jake.soapware.org/outstandingBdgIssues
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > If you have any outstanding issues, please send an email
      > to the
      >
      === message truncated ===


      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
      http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/?.refer=text
    • Show all 23 messages in this topic