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

SOAP Spec section 3

Expand Messages
  • Simon Fell
    So, i was re-reading the spec again, and noticed that the SOAP namespace is a MUST not a REQUIRED, and that you MAY treat a SOAP request with no namespace
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 20, 2001
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      So, i was re-reading the spec again, and noticed that the SOAP
      namespace is a MUST not a REQUIRED, and that you MAY treat a SOAP
      request with no namespace qualifications, as a real SOAP request, i.e.
      you can choose to accept the following as a real soap request.

      <Envelope>
      <Body>
      <Add><a>1</a><b>1</b></Add>
      </Body>
      </Envelope>


      Is anyone aware of any implementations that allow this ?

      Cheers
      Simon
    • Paul Kulchenko
      Hi, Simon! Hm, you re right. SOAP::Lite will allow it. Unfortunately I put too strong check for namespace on Envelope, but it ll be weakened according to spec.
      Message 2 of 5 , Mar 21, 2001
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi, Simon!

        Hm, you're right. SOAP::Lite will allow it. Unfortunately I put too
        strong check for namespace on Envelope, but it'll be weakened
        according to spec. I like this short SOAP message :))

        Best wishes, Paul.

        --- Simon Fell <soap@...> wrote:
        > So, i was re-reading the spec again, and noticed that the SOAP
        > namespace is a MUST not a REQUIRED, and that you MAY treat a SOAP
        > request with no namespace qualifications, as a real SOAP request,
        > i.e.
        > you can choose to accept the following as a real soap request.
        >
        > <Envelope>
        > <Body>
        > <Add><a>1</a><b>1</b></Add>
        > </Body>
        > </Envelope>
        >
        >
        > Is anyone aware of any implementations that allow this ?
        >
        > Cheers
        > Simon
        >
        > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        >
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >


        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
        http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
      • keithba@microsoft.com
        You mean MAY below, right? Not MUST? From http://www.normos.org/ietf/rfc/rfc2119.txt: 1. MUST This word, or the terms REQUIRED or SHALL , mean that the
        Message 3 of 5 , Mar 21, 2001
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          You mean MAY below, right? Not MUST?

          From http://www.normos.org/ietf/rfc/rfc2119.txt:
          1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the
          definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.


          --- In soapbuilders@y..., Simon Fell <soap@z...> wrote:
          > So, i was re-reading the spec again, and noticed that the SOAP
          > namespace is a MUST not a REQUIRED, and that you MAY treat a SOAP
          > request with no namespace qualifications, as a real SOAP request,
          i.e.
          > you can choose to accept the following as a real soap request.
          >
          > <Envelope>
          > <Body>
          > <Add><a>1</a><b>1</b></Add>
          > </Body>
          > </Envelope>
          >
          >
          > Is anyone aware of any implementations that allow this ?
          >
          > Cheers
          > Simon
        • yzhang@erols.com
          SQLData implementation allows SOAP messages without a namespace for Envelop. It accepts something like:
          Message 4 of 5 , Mar 21, 2001
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            SQLData implementation allows SOAP messages without a namespace for
            Envelop. It accepts something like:

            <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8">
            <Envelope><Body><Method1><bstrParam1>{$bstrParam1}
            </bstrParam1><bstrParam2>{$bstrParam2}</bstrParam2></Method1></Body>
            </Envelope>

            The endpoint for the message is
            http://soapclient.com/xml/soapresponder.wsdl, and SOAPAction
            is /SoapObject



            --- In soapbuilders@y..., Simon Fell <soap@z...> wrote:
            > So, i was re-reading the spec again, and noticed that the SOAP
            > namespace is a MUST not a REQUIRED, and that you MAY treat a SOAP
            > request with no namespace qualifications, as a real SOAP request,
            i.e.
            > you can choose to accept the following as a real soap request.
            >
            > <Envelope>
            > <Body>
            > <Add><a>1</a><b>1</b></Add>
            > </Body>
            > </Envelope>
            >
            >
            > Is anyone aware of any implementations that allow this ?
            >
            > Cheers
            > Simon
          • yzhang@erols.com
            It reads like this: It (A SOAP application) MAY process SOAP messages without SOAP namespaces as though they had the correct SOAP namespaces. Simon is
            Message 5 of 5 , Mar 21, 2001
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              It reads like this:

              It (A SOAP application) MAY process SOAP messages without SOAP
              namespaces as though they had the correct SOAP namespaces.

              Simon is absolutely correct in pointing out that namespaces for both
              envelope and serialization are not REQUIRED.

              Cheers,

              Yunhao


              --- In soapbuilders@y..., keithba@m... wrote:
              > You mean MAY below, right? Not MUST?
              >
              > From http://www.normos.org/ietf/rfc/rfc2119.txt:
              > 1. MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that
              the
              > definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.
              >
              >
              > --- In soapbuilders@y..., Simon Fell <soap@z...> wrote:
              > > So, i was re-reading the spec again, and noticed that the SOAP
              > > namespace is a MUST not a REQUIRED, and that you MAY treat a SOAP
              > > request with no namespace qualifications, as a real SOAP request,
              > i.e.
              > > you can choose to accept the following as a real soap request.
              > >
              > > <Envelope>
              > > <Body>
              > > <Add><a>1</a><b>1</b></Add>
              > > </Body>
              > > </Envelope>
              > >
              > >
              > > Is anyone aware of any implementations that allow this ?
              > >
              > > Cheers
              > > Simon
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.