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

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

Expand Messages
  • Paul Kulchenko
    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
    Message 1 of 7 , Jul 9 5:08 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      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 xmlp-comments@..., 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'

      2. Example 7 specifies faultcode as Name instead of QName

      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".

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

      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 [5.4.2.1 Partially Transmitted Arrays] which says about enc:offset
      on Array element itself. Schema shows enc:offset on Array element
      also.

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

      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.

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

      Best wishes, Paul.

      --- Hugo Haas <hugo@...> wrote:
      > FYI.
      >
      > Regards,
      >
      > Hugo
      >
      > -----------------------------------------------------------------
      > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to
      > discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay
      > on-topic.
      >
      > 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/
      >
      >

      > ATTACHMENT part 2 message/rfc822
      > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 11:42:58 -0400
      > From: Hugo Haas <hugo@...>
      > To: xml-dist-app@..., www-ws@...
      > Subject: Publication of the first W3C Working Drafts of SOAP
      > Version 1.2 and of the XML Protocol Abstract Model
      > Organization: World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
      >
      > As part of the XML Protocol Activity[1], the XML Protocol Working
      > Group[2] is pleased to announce the publication of the first W3C
      > Working Drafts of:
      >
      > - SOAP Version 1.2:
      >
      > http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-20010709/
      >
      > - XML Protocol Abstract Model:
      >
      > http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xmlp-am-20010709/
      >
      > Comments on these documents should be sent to the publicly
      > archived[3]
      > W3C mailing list <xmlp-comments@...>.
      >
      > Regards,
      >
      > Hugo Haas
      > W3C Team contact for the XML Protocol Working Group
      >
      > 1. http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/
      > 2. http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/
      > 3. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/
      > --
      > Hugo Haas - W3C
      > mailto:hugo@... - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
      >




      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
      http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
    • Paul Kulchenko
      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
      Message 2 of 7 , Jul 9 5:31 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        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 xmlp-comments@..., 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'

        2. Example 7 specifies faultcode as Name instead of QName

        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".

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

        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 [5.4.2.1 Partially Transmitted Arrays] which says about enc:offset
        on Array element itself. Schema shows enc:offset on Array element
        also.

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

        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.

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

        Best wishes, Paul.

        --- Hugo Haas <hugo@...> wrote:
        > FYI.
        >
        > Regards,
        >
        > Hugo
        >
        > -----------------------------------------------------------------
        > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to
        > discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay
        > on-topic.
        >
        > 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/
        >
        >

        > ATTACHMENT part 2 message/rfc822
        > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 11:42:58 -0400
        > From: Hugo Haas <hugo@...>
        > To: xml-dist-app@..., www-ws@...
        > Subject: Publication of the first W3C Working Drafts of SOAP
        > Version 1.2 and of the XML Protocol Abstract Model
        > Organization: World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
        >
        > As part of the XML Protocol Activity[1], the XML Protocol Working
        > Group[2] is pleased to announce the publication of the first W3C
        > Working Drafts of:
        >
        > - SOAP Version 1.2:
        >
        > http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-20010709/
        >
        > - XML Protocol Abstract Model:
        >
        > http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xmlp-am-20010709/
        >
        > Comments on these documents should be sent to the publicly
        > archived[3]
        > W3C mailing list <xmlp-comments@...>.
        >
        > Regards,
        >
        > Hugo Haas
        > W3C Team contact for the XML Protocol Working Group
        >
        > 1. http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/
        > 2. http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/
        > 3. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/
        > --
        > Hugo Haas - W3C
        > mailto:hugo@... - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
        >




        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
        http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
      • Martin Gudgin
        ... From: Paul Kulchenko To: ; Cc: Hugo Haas Sent: Tuesday,
        Message 3 of 7 , Jul 10 5:50 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Paul Kulchenko" <paulclinger@...>
          To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>; <soap@...>
          Cc: "Hugo Haas" <hugo@...>
          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 xmlp-comments@..., 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 [5.4.2.1 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
          former.

          >
          > 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
          list.

          >
          > Best wishes, Paul.
          >

          Thanks very much for the feedback

          Martin Gudgin
          DevelopMentor
        • Paul Kulchenko
          Hi, Martin! Thank you for your comments. ... There is no definition of top level of serialization and maybe it s a common term, but I couldn t find it and
          Message 4 of 7 , Jul 10 8:18 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi, Martin!

            Thank you for your comments.

            > > 4. No clarification about "top level of serialization" (did I
            > miss
            > > it?)
            > What kind of clarification were you looking for?
            There is no definition of "top level of serialization" and maybe it's
            a common term, but I couldn't find it and spec doesn't have any
            examples on multiref serialization. There should be at least one
            (better two, one of them should show multirefs shared between Header
            and Body).

            > 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 agree, I was confused by [5.1.8]: 'A SOAP array member MAY contain
            a "enc:offset"'. Probably wording should be changed to support your
            clarification.

            > 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 former.
            That's not the only question.
            - Should ALL element be marked with position attribute if one of them
            is marked?
            - What is the position of element that is NOT marked with position
            attribute, but previous one is marked (if we allow not all elements
            to be marked). Is it previous+1? something else?
            - What should be the ORDER of elements with position attributes? any?
            ascending?
            - If position is absolute, what about elements that are NOT marked
            with position, but Array element has offset attribute?
            <Array enc:offset="[2]">
            <item enc:position="[1]"/>
            <item />
            </Array>

            My proposal is simple. enc:offset and enc:position attributes should
            NOT be mixed on the same array (if mixed, position should be
            relative, thus offset should be applied AFTER position). enc:position
            attribute should be specified on ALL elements of the array (order is
            not significant, but there should not be duplicates).

            I think also should be clarified that arrayType specifies the SIZE of
            resulting array, and not the number of elements, so

            <Array enc:arrayType="xsd:anyType[10]">
            <item />
            <item />
            </Array>

            is legal, but

            <Array enc:arrayType="xsd:anyType[10]" enc:offset="[10]">
            <item />
            <item />
            </Array>

            is not.

            Spec also doesn't say that offset and position can't be negative (it
            just says that arrays are 0-based). Should be clarified imho.

            One more thing. Spec itself has transition mechanism that work for
            1.1 and 1.2 and eventually will describe transitions between any
            versions. At the same time, description provided for HTTP Extension
            Framework [6.3] doesn't let you use that transition mechanism with
            M-POST requests. If you want to support both 1.1 and 1.2 you need to
            accept requests for both, but definition for M-POST allows you to
            accept only 1.2 since extension identifier is fixed for 1.2 version.

            In general I think it's a mistake to use DIFFERENT extension
            identifiers for different versions. It should be unique enough, but
            it shouldn't care any information about SOAP version (imho) otherwise
            we will need to duplicate transition logic on transport level that
            has nothing to do with SOAP content.

            Probably we need to keep the same identifier that was used for 1.1 or
            clearly specify transition logic (if any) used for M-POSTs.

            Best wishes, Paul.

            --- Martin Gudgin <marting@...> wrote:
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: "Paul Kulchenko" <paulclinger@...>
            > To: <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>; <soap@...>
            > Cc: "Hugo Haas" <hugo@...>
            > 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 xmlp-comments@..., 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 [5.4.2.1 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
            > former.
            >
            > >
            > > 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
            > list.
            >
            > >
            > > Best wishes, Paul.
            > >
            >
            > Thanks very much for the feedback
            >
            > Martin Gudgin
            > DevelopMentor
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > -----------------------------------------------------------------
            > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to
            > discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay
            > on-topic.
            >
            > 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 personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
            http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
          • Paul Kulchenko
            Hi, All! SOAP::Lite endpoint was updated to support SOAP 1.2 and 1999/2001 schemas. Should reply 1999 for 1999 and 2001 for 2001 schemas. You can also mix both
            Message 5 of 7 , Jul 10 11:42 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi, All!

              SOAP::Lite endpoint was updated to support SOAP 1.2 and 1999/2001
              schemas. Should reply 1999 for 1999 and 2001 for 2001 schemas. You
              can also mix both in the same request. Should also reply SOAP 1.2 for
              SOAP 1.2 requests and 1.1 for 1.1.

              VersionMismatch will be returned with SOAP 1.1. update header is not
              supported (but text with list of supported version provided on
              VersionMismatch). Actor attribute supported in both SOAP 1.1 and SOAP
              1.2.

              Let me know if I did anything wrong. I need to doublecheck types
              tomorrow. I also have client for SOAP 1.2, so if someone needs to hit
              endpoint let me know.

              Tests for B and C rounds will follow.

              Best wishes, Paul.


              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
              http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
            • Bob Cunnings
              Hello, In the pursuit of clarity, I propose to amend the Round 2 interop test proposals to specify that SOAP v1.1 shall be used... Any objections? Comments? RC
              Message 6 of 7 , Jul 11 9:11 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                Hello,

                In the pursuit of clarity, I propose to amend the Round 2 interop
                test proposals to specify that SOAP v1.1 shall be used...

                Any objections? Comments?

                RC

                > Hi, All!
                >
                > SOAP::Lite endpoint was updated to support SOAP 1.2 and 1999/2001
                > schemas. Should reply 1999 for 1999 and 2001 for 2001 schemas. You
                > can also mix both in the same request. Should also reply SOAP 1.2 for
                > SOAP 1.2 requests and 1.1 for 1.1.
                >
                > VersionMismatch will be returned with SOAP 1.1. update header is not
                > supported (but text with list of supported version provided on
                > VersionMismatch). Actor attribute supported in both SOAP 1.1 and SOAP
                > 1.2.
                >
                > Let me know if I did anything wrong. I need to doublecheck types
                > tomorrow. I also have client for SOAP 1.2, so if someone needs to hit
                > endpoint let me know.
                >
                > Tests for B and C rounds will follow.
                >
                > Best wishes, Paul.
                >
                >
                > __________________________________________________
                > Do You Yahoo!?
                > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
                > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
                >
                > -----------------------------------------------------------------
                > This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
                >
                > 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/
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.