W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > January 2004

Re: What does http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP identify?

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 07:48:47 -0500
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hp.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040116074847.G25253@www.markbaker.ca>

Hi Stuart,

On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 09:48:31AM -0000, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> 
> FWIW I'll offer my personal perspective.

Thanks, I think that's useful at this point.

> In order to answer your question you have to accept the premise that the
> XMLP-WG has changed which resource is referenced by the URI. That may be
> open to question, but I don't think you can take it as a given - an
> personally I don't see that they have.

Good point.  I might have been clearer if I described the issue as one
of disagreement between a URI publisher, and the world at large, about
what a URI identifies; that until recently, the representations
returned from that URI were consistent with the different identity
interpretations of "both" parties.

> IMO, the clarification from the XMLP-WG is entirely consistent with URI
> policy for TR page URIs as articulated in section 1 of the W3C pubrules [1]
> (I encountered these working on the metaDataInUri-31 draft finding - looking
> for an example of an articulation of URI assignment policy).

Yes, I agree.  But I don't think the W3C/XMLP did what they could have
to make this policy clear.  Specifically, prior to a few weeks ago when
the redirect to SOAP 1.2 occurred, the content of the SOAP 1.1 spec was
returned directly in a response with only the Content-Location header
set to point to the /TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-20000508 (IIRC).  IMO, what would
have better supported the policy would have been a transient redirect
from /TR/SOAP.  That way, the second URI would have been made visible to
agents and humans (i.e. show up in the browser URI bar).

> I'd be a little troubled by specifications making latest version references
> rather than specific version references (I don't know whether the former is
> a widespread practice), just as I'd be a little wary of writing a blank
> cheque - or writing a cheque in pencil. 

Sure.  But when basically the whole world decides that it isn't a
latest version reference, then IMO, it isn't.

FWIW, if you consult the Google Oracle for backlinks ...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=link%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FSOAP&btnG=Google+Search

You'll see that most of those pages use the URI to refer to SOAP 1.1,
rather than "SOAP in general".

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Friday, 16 January 2004 07:53:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:23 GMT