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

Re: [soapbuilders] SOAP Spec section 3

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 5 , Mar 21 12:20 PM
    • 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 2 of 5 , Mar 21 1:49 PM
      • 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 3 of 5 , Mar 21 9:13 PM
        • 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 4 of 5 , Mar 21 9:34 PM
          • 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.