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 16:07:20 +0200
Message-ID: <3D1B1C18.2BD9F354@crf.canon.fr>
To: Christopher B Ferris <christopher_ferris@us.ibm.com>
CC: Web Service Description <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Hi Chris, nice seeing you again! (I see you have your new name badge.)

I have been thinking about xml:base as well; IMO, whether a particular SOAP message has a relative role, made absolute by
xml:base, or an absolute role, is implementation/SOAP specific. As far as WSDL is concerned, it should not matter, the role
should be absolute; up to the SOAP sender to then decide to use xml:base or not.

Does this make sense?

Jean-Jacques.

Christopher B Ferris wrote:

> Hmmm... SOAP allows use of xml:base[1] AII for purposes of establishing a
> base URI for any relative URI's carried in information items in, or subordinate
> to, the SOAP envelope. It isn't clear to me how WSDL would capture this, so that the base URI were applied to a SOAP
> envelope EII being created. In any event, URI values of any information items that were ostensibly relative could be
> rendered absolute by means of prepending the base URI.
>
> Just a thought,
>
> Chris
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-soap12-part1-20020626/#reltoxml
>
>
>                       "Jean-Jacques
>                       Moreau"                  To:       Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
>                       <moreau@crf.canon        cc:       Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, Web Service Description
>                       .fr>                      <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
>                       Sent by:                 Subject:  Re: Issue 17: support for SOAP role attribute
>                       www-ws-desc-reque
>                       st@w3.org
>
>
>                       06/27/2002 03:40
>                       AM
>
>
>
> 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 10:08:41 GMT

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