SOAP 1.2 Editor's TODO List

Last edited: $Date: 2002/04/09 10:59:06 $ by $Author: jmoreau $

# Issue # Spec Part Description Resolution Editor Priority Status
1 17 Part 2 The SOAP spec intermixes schemas and SOAP section 5 encoding to such a great degree that it is difficult to understand how to send a message which does not have an associated schema (most of the examples speak of an associated schema). Clean up spec (any ideas?) Gudge High Done. MJG 20020322
2 110 Both The specifications make little or no distinction between what is normative and what is not. A W3C specification must make this distinction. MJG propose we mark non-normative sections with (Non-normative) after the section heading and that we state in the preamble that everything else is normative. Do we have a feel for which sections are normative and which are non-normative?
MJH we should use the inform-dev1 tag instead of div1 to mark non-normative sections - the stylesheet adds the "(Non-Normative)" bit then.

JJM as far as I remember, inform-div1 is currently only supported in <body>

 Gudge Medium Done HFN 20020322
3 48 Part 2 Dependencies between RPC, data model and encoding, See second close notification   Henrik Medium Done, MJH 20020312
4 Ednote Part 2 Remove ednote 3.1.2 in Part 2 and associated paragraph   NA NA Done, MJG 20020225
5 Ednote Part 2 Rebalance text in Section 3 between encoding rules and explanation Remove duplication between serialization rules and text. Make rules pointers to text in sub sections. Gudge Low Done. MJG 20020322
6 Ednote Part 2 Change transport MEP to MEP   Jean-Jacques Medium Done. MJG 20020227
7 Ednote Part 2 Generate new name for single request/response. Part 2 Henrik: Did not rename "single-res-res" as it does make some sense but moved JohnI's comments into the text: the first ednote about the abstractness is at the top and the 2nd about the no implied timing into section 6.1.2 Jean-Jacques (as part of 57) Medium  
8 Ednote Part 2 Move the 'this is abstract' ednote from Part 2 Section 6.1.3 up to top of section 6 as text.   Gudge Medium Done. MJG 20020227
9 Ednote Part 2 Handle second ednote of 7.4.1.2.1 Already covered by the above table + raised new issue. Marc (as part of 58) Medium Done, JJM 2002/3/22
10 Ednote Part 2 Delete section 7.5.2   Jean-Jacques Medium Done. MJG 20020225
11 None Part 2 Part 2. Move the HTTP specific examples in Appendix B1 to Appendix C. Move bare SOAP examples to Part 1 and add a note that they are infosets.   Marc Medium Done, HFN 20020228
12 None Part 1 Add 'feature' to glossary in part 1. To do with transport bindings   Gudge Medium Done, HFN 20020311
13 178 Part 1 Incorporate the resolution   Henrik Medium Done, HFN 20020228
14 179 Part 1 Insert resolution to issue 179, replacing 'support' with 'enable'   Jean-Jacques Medium Done, HFN 20020228
15 103 Part 1 Insert resolution of issue 103 with the following modifications;
  1. "Normally" with "in the absence of faults"
  2. "recipient" with "receiver"
  3. "the ultimate" with "an ultimate"
   Marc Medium Done, HFN 20020228
16 None Both Move section 6.3 into 6.4 and add security considerations text. Note ref to section 5.5 in text should read 6.4.   Gudge Medium Done, HFN 20020228
17 177 Part 2 Incorporate resolution into spec Section on default values seemed already to have been removed Henrik Medium Done, HFN 20020304
18 16 Part 2 Incorporate resolution to issue 16   Jean-Jacques Medium Done, MJH 20020312
19 17 Part 2 Incorporate resolution for issue 17 Henrik: incorporated into Gudge's revision Marc Medium Done, HFN 20020311
20 185 Part 2 Add priority feedback request for issue 185 re: Generic Compound Types   Gudge Medium Done. MJG 20020322
21 78 ( ish ) Part 2 Add the notion of root into the data model and incorporate revised resolution of issue 78 Pending WG resolution Gudge Low  
22 184 Part 2 Add resolution of issue 184. Incorporate resolution Pending text from Gudge Jean-Jacques Low Done, JJM 2002/3/20
23 59 Part 1 Put first part of proposal into part 1 section 6;

It is the responsibility of transport bindings to specify how the infoset is being transferred to and reconstituted by the binding at the receiving node. Such a binding, if using XML 1.0 serialization of the infoset, may mandate that a particular character encoding or set of encodings be used.

  Henrik Medium Done, HFN 20020228
24 59 Part 2 Put second part of proposal into part 2 ( HTTP binding );

Say that we mandate support for UTF-8 and UTF-16

  Jean-Jacques Medium Done, HFN 20020228
25 176 Part 1 Add proposed resolution with editorial discretion re: duplication, MUST, SHOULD and relation to closed infoset. Check that we have a reference to this in the binding framework ( what does this mean? ) Awaiting resolution text from Henrik/Noah Marc Medium Done, HFN 20020322
26 None Both Add ids to every section   Gudge/Marc High Done MH/MJG 27/2/2002
27 None Part 1 Go through marked up spec from StuartW   Gudge Medium Done. MJG 20020304
28 None Both Go through marked up spec from DavidF Awaiting comments from DavidF Jean-Jacques Medium Done MJH 20020322
29 None Both Go through marked up spec from NoahM   Marc Medium Done, JJM 2002/3/19 (there were no comments on Part 2)
30 None Both
  • Be consistent in terminology around Fault:  "Sender" "Receiver" etc are fault codes, not just faults.
  • In part 2, the fault codes are "qualified" by using "env" etc. Be consistent with part 1
  • Mark fault names with markup as in <var>VersionMismatch</var> to distinguish the names.
   Marc Medium Done MJH 20020321.
31 None Part 2 Delete paragraph:
An example of the use of a header block is the passing of a transaction ID along with a message. Since the transaction ID is not part of the signature and is typically held in an infrastructure component rather than application code, there is no direct way to pass the necessary information with the invocation. By adding a header block with a fixed name, the transaction manager on the receiving side can extract the transaction ID and use it without affecting the coding of remote procedure calls.
  Henrik Low Done, HFN 20020304
32 None Part 1 Update introduction to make clear what is in part 1 and what is in part 2   Henrik Low Done, HFN 20020310
33 None Both Update cross-references from saying "bibref" "xspecref" to "bibref" section "xspecref". Otherwise the generated HTML looks funny (the links are back to back)   Jean-Jacques Low Done, JJM 2002/3/20
34 Mail Part 2 Remove use of word "transport" Done for part 1 and part 2 Henrik Low Done for part 2 MJH 20020322.
35 181 Part 1 Incorporate resolution   Gudge Medium Done. MJG 20020306
36 137 Part 1 Incorporate resolution   Henrik Medium Done. HFN 20020308
37 None Part 1 For some reason, encodingStyle is indicated in example in section 4 as being in the encoding NS which it isn't - it is in the envelope NS   Henrik Medium Done, HFN 20020310
38 None Both Move second part of this section from part 1 to part 2 as it is not part 1 material (requirements on encoding should be in part 2):
The serialization rules defined by SOAP (see [1]SOAP Encoding) are identified by the URI "http://www.w3.org/2001/12/soap-encoding". SOAP messages using this particular serialization SHOULD indicate this using the SOAP encodingStyle attribute information item.
   Henrik Low Done, MJG/HFN 20020311
39 180 Part 2 Incorporate resolution   Henrik Medium Done, JJM 2002/3/02
40 None Part 1 Gudge: I notice that the description of where env:encodingStyle can appear is not consistent with the description of Header. Pending WG resolution Jean-Jacques Medium  
41 None Part 1 Update section SOAP Extensibility Model as it is not consistent (part binding, part extensibility)   Henrik Medium Done, HFN 20020318
42 182 Part 1 Incorporate resolution.   Marc Medium Done, 20020312.
43 113 Part 2 Incorporate resolution to issue 113   MJH Medium Done, MJH 20020312
44 183 Part 1 Incorporate resolution   Henrik Medium Done, JJM 2002/3/20
45 none Part 1 encodingStyle is no longer clear on there no being a default value - it should be   Jean-Jacques Medium Done. MJG 20020322
46 102 Part 2 Incorporate resolution   Marc Medium Done, MJH 20020320
47 none Part 1 Error in examples of encoding attribute   Henrik Low Subsumed by 37
48 168 Part 2 Incorporate resolution   Gudge Medium Done. MJG 20020322
49 170 Part 2 Incorporate resolution   Gudge Medium Done. MJG 20020322
50 47 Part 2 Data model vs. encoding - resolution     Medium Subsumed by 1
51 40 Part 1 Incorporate resolution   Henrik Medium Done, JJM 2002/3/20
52 144, 161, 117 Part 2 Arrays - incorporate resolutions 1, 2 and 3   Gudge Medium Done. MJG 20020322
53 174 Part 1 Simple type terminology for envelope attributes - resolution   Marc Medium Done MJH 20020321
54 Comment1, Comment2, Comment3 Part 2 Comments on arrays   Jean-Jacques Medium Subsumed by 1
55 Comment Part 1 Comment on schema processing requirement Added resolution Henrik Medium Done, HFN 20020304
56 67 Part 2 Convey error information   Henrik Medium Subsumed by 46
57 Editorial Part 2 Work though MEP section as it needs massaging   Jean-Jacques Medium  
58 Editorial Part 2 Work through HTTP binding section as it needs massaging First pass completed, may need subsequent pass to bring tables into more consistent structure and usage. Marc Medium Done - MJH 20020408
59 Editorial Part 2 Work through abstract and introduction of part 2   Henrik Medium  
60 Editorial Part 1 Work through versioning model Awaiting input from WG Henrik/Marc Medium  
61 12 Part 2 Incorporate resolution to issue 12 (see issue)   Marc Medium Done MJH 20020320.
62 Editorial Part 2 Ensure that section 1.1 Notation Conventions is consistent with part 1 and with the actual usage in part 2     Medium Done - HFN 20020322
63 Editorial Part 2 Be consistent with naming of sections (many different names are currently used). I propose
  • SOAP Data Model
  • SOAP Encoding
  • SOAP RPC Representation
  • SOAP HTTP Binding
     Medium Done. MJG 20020322
64 Editorial Part 2 Clarify optionality of HTTP binding (see mail and Noah's comments)     Medium Done - HFN 20020321
65 Editorial Part 1 Consider reordering top-level sections in part 1:
  1. introduction
  2. processing model
  3. extensibility model
  4. binding framework
  5. envelope construct
  6. URI
  7. Security
     Medium Done, HFN 20020322
66 Editorial Part 1 Consider deleting mid-paragraph in section 1.3 as it is not quite true and we have better text elsewhere
The XML encoding of SOAP has dependencies on a minimum number of other specifications (XML Base [11], XML Schema Datatypes [5], XML 1.0 [8], and XML Namespaces [7]), none of which has prohibitive processing requirements. SOAP 1.2 also excludes some of XML 1.0's features, which could help lower processing requirements -- see section 1.2 Relation to other XML Specifications.
     Medium Done, JJM 2002/3/22
67 Editorial Both Should we use qualified fault codes with fake prefixes?     Medium Done MJH 20020322
68 189 Part 1 Clarify which properties are valid for the document information item     Medium Done. MJG 20020403
69 Editorial Part 1 Ensure that we are consistent in the use of "header block" vs. "child element information items of the SOAP Header element information item". Make the general description of header block separate from the actual position and only in section 5 have it tied to a specific location in the message construct.     Medium  
70 187 Part 1 Incorporate resolution     Medium  
71 191 Part 1 Incorporate resolution     Medium Done, JJM 2002/04/03
72 193 Part 1 Incorporate resolution when posted to xmlp-comments     Medium  
73 Editorial Part 2 DavidF suggests that we change "http://www.w3.org/2001/12/soap/bindings/defaultHTTP" to "http://www.w3.org/2001/12/soap/bindings/HTTP"     Medium Done. MJG 20020403
74 Editorial Both Suggestion: make terms that are define in the glossary references back to the glossary. Henrik made clear that this is considered "icing on the cake" and that we don't promise that it will get done.   Low  
75 Editorial Both Should examples and tables have numbers? It is very difficult to refer to them right now Marc will look at stylesheet to try to persuade it to add nunbers to tables and figures. Done, they are now numbered by the stylesheet - but you still can't do a <specref ref="..."/> to them, that would require more far reaching changes - do we need to do this ? Marc Low Done - MJH 20020408
76 Editorial Part1 Wordsmithing for section "SOAP intermediaries" Implemented a milder version of: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2002Mar/0060.html Jean-Jacques Medium Done, JJM 2002/4/3
77 Editorial Part1 Wordsmithing for section "Use of SOAP header block Attributes" Implemented a milder version of: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2002Mar/0064.html Jean-Jacques Medium Done, JJM 2002/4/3
78 Editorial Part1 Factorize the common elements in the 1st and 2nd paragraph from the extensibility section Implemented http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2002Mar/0061.html with amendments from Henrik (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2002Apr/0006.html) and Marc (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2002Apr/0008.html) Jean-Jacques Medium Done, JJM 2002/4/3
79 Editorial/Design Part1 Incorporated Noah's comments. Done minor comments, JJM, 2002/04/05. Done moderate comments, JJM, 2002/04/05. Done major comments, MJH, 2002/04/05. Medium