Re: CR112, CR144, and everything

Jean-Jacques,

thank you for looking at the proposal.

On Thu, 2007-02-15 at 15:02 +0100, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
> > 5.10.3 SOAP 1.2 Binding Rules
> > [[
> > HTTP IRI Generation. [...] If the SOAP MEP selected is
> > "http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/soap-response/" then the value of
> > the SOAP "http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/ImmediateDestination"
> > property MUST be generated using the HTTP binding extension's rules for
> > generating an IRI for HTTP GET (see 6.8.1 Serialization of the instance
> > data in parts of the HTTP request IRI). The input serialization format
> > of application/x-www-form-urlencoded is the only supported serialization
> > format for HTTP GET in the SOAP Response Message Exchange Pattern.
> > ]]
> >
> > QUESTION: We map all WSDL MEPs into the SOAP Request-Response MEP in
> > section 5.10.4, but we stay silent at mapping them into the SOAP
> > Response MEP. Is that intentional? How do one map the WSDL In-Out MEP
> > into the SOAP Response MEP? It seems to me that the text we have for
> > HTTP IRI Generation is in fact meant to define partially that mapping.
> >   
> Isn't the text you quote above already covered elsewhere (e.g. 
> 5.10.4.xxx)? Can't we simply drop it?

I don't believe so since we only provide mapping to SOAP
Request-Response in 5.10.4. IMO, 5.10.4 should cover SOAP Response as
well, thus my question.

> > RECOMMENDATION: the notion of SOAP Request-Optional-Response as a SOAP
> > MEP doesn't exist as far I know
> Indeed. (For the curious: the expression Req-Opt-Resp is present in the 
> introduction the PR for SOAP 1.2 SE, but was removed in a subsequent 
> editor draft.)
> > and we map them all to the SOAP Request-Response anyway.
> But not to the exact same Req-Resp MEP! (although they share the same 
> URI and, probably?, the same behaviour) See my earlier message [3].

ok. Btw, we will link to the latest SOAP 1.2 REC, ie the one that will
contain the revised SOAP Request-Response MEP.

> > RECOMMENDATION: This should now read:
> > [[
> > {http location} OPTIONAL. An xs:anyURI, to the Binding Operation
> > component. It MUST contain an IRI reference and MUST NOT include a
> > fragment identifier component.† 
> > ]]
> >   
> +1 (assuming you mean replacing the 1st paragaph and deleting the 2nd 
> and 3rd).

Yes. Only the text I quote below will remain.

> > [[
> > Each encoded template (encodedTemplate production in the grammar above)
> > NOT preceeded in the {http location} property by a "?" or a "#"
> > character, is encoded as follows:
> >   [...]
> >
> > Each uncited element (i.e. each element not referenced in a template),
> > OR each encoded template (encodedTemplate production in the grammar
> > above) preceeded in the {http location} property by a "?" or a "#"
> > character, is encoded as follows:
> > ]]
> >
> > RECOMMENDATION: Do nothing. I don't think it's good design to have ? or
> > # in the {address} property and it would complicate the description too
> > much to be able to describe this, so let's stick with {http location}.
> >   
> You mean: keep the above 2 paragraph as is? If so +1.

yep.

Philippe