W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > June 2002

Re: Issue 17: support for SOAP role attribute

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 09:40:59 +0200
Message-ID: <3D1AC18B.41851969@crf.canon.fr>
To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
CC: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, Web Service Description <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Yes, the SOAP spec doesn't say. I think a relative URI does not make sense
in general, as the SOAP sender and receiver may have different assumption
about the semantics carried by the URI.

For example, from role="cacheManager", the receiver could infer
role="http://nron.net/cacheManager" and the sender
role="http://andersaine.gov/cacheManager". They may not understand each
other well.

On the other hand, if both agree before hand (via other means than WSDL),
things will just be fine.

So what about the following then (changes >>bracketed<<)?

<proposed rev="3">
The type of the role attribute information item is anyURI in the
namespace named "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema". The value of
the role attribute information item is a URI that names a role
that a SOAP node can assume. >>It SHOULD NOT be
a relative URI.<<
</proposed>

Jean-Jacques.

Martin Gudgin wrote:

> Good question. The SOAP 1.2 LC spec[1] doesn't say. An LC issue perhaps?
>
> Gudge
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#soaprole
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Marsh
> Sent: 26 June 2002 20:03
> To: Martin Gudgin; Jean-Jacques Moreau
> Cc: Web Service Description
> Subject: RE: Issue 17: support for SOAP role attribute
>
> Can a role attribute contain a relative URI?  xs:anyURI allows this,
> unless we add a restriction in prose.  If relative URIs are allowed, can
> we support the empty value case without stepping on the infoset [base
> URI] property?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Martin Gudgin [mailto:mgudgin@microsoft.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 9:12 AM
> > To: Jean-Jacques Moreau
> > Cc: Web Service Description
> > Subject: RE: Issue 17: support for SOAP role attribute
> >
> >
> > Well, I think it sould probably just be 'role', as it appears on a
> > soap:header element there is no need to qualify the attribute.
> >
> > Gudge
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr]
> > Sent: 26 June 2002 16:25
> > To: Martin Gudgin
> > Cc: Web Service Description
> > Subject: Re: Issue 17: support for SOAP role attribute
> >
> >
> > This is much better, thanks. Actually, I think we should also change
> > 'SOAP role' to 'soap:role'.
> >
> > Jean-Jacques.
> >
> > Martin Gudgin wrote:
> >
> > > Also suggest you merge the following two sentences;
> > >
> > > 'Omitting the SOAP role attribute information item is equivalent to
> > > indicating value of
> > > "http://www.w3.org/2001/12/soap-envelope/role/ultimateReceiver".
> > > An empty value is equivalent to omitting the attribute completely,
> > > i.e. targeting the SOAP header block to an ultimate SOAP receiver.'
> > >
> > > To read
> > >
> > > 'A SOAP role attribute information item that is either absent or has
>
> > > an empty value is equivalent to indicating a value of
> > > "http://www.w3.org/2001/12/soap-envelope/role/ultimateReceiver" i.e.
>
> > > targeting the SOAP header block to an ultimate SOAP receiver.'
Received on Thursday, 27 June 2002 03:41:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:20 GMT