W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2007

RE: LocationTemplate-1G test

From: Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:00:56 -0800
To: "'Youenn Fablet'" <youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>, "'keith chapman'" <keithgchapman@gmail.com>
Cc: "'www-ws-desc'" <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01d801c756cc$f38671a0$1501010a@DELLICIOUS>

Summarizing this thread, this morning's discussion, and the related issues:

- [FIXED] * was improperly encoded in the baseline.

- [QUESTION 1] The spec says what characters MUST be encoded, but there are
also characters that MAY be encoded such as * (and pretty much any other
character except %).  Our test suite assumes only the characters that MUST
be are.  Should we change this?  (I think we should do this
opportunistically, that is, if a testcase is proven to be correct, we simply
add an alternative that matches that implementation's encoding strategy.  I
don't think we have any failures because of this at present.)

- [AGREED] Per the last paragraph of 6.8.1, referencing section 3.1 of RFC
3987, some further encoding is performed after the http location templates
are resolved and combined with the {address} property.

- [QUESTION 2] Is this sufficiently clear in the spec?  (I think so.)

- [AGREED] Besides the extended characters encoded above, the spec says
implementations SHOULD also encode "<", ">", '"', space, "{", "}", "|", "\",
"^", and "`".  Our test suite will currently assume this SHOULD has been
followed.

- [FIXED] There other editorial improvements such as removing the double
negative, reordering bullets, removing query parameter separator from
consideration before the "?".

- [QUESTION 3] Are there additional editorial improvements possible?  (I
think so, as reported in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2007Feb/0193.html).

- [QUESTION 4] Is "&" a harmful character before the "?".  If not, we should
add it to the excluded list.

- [QUESTION 5] Are ";" and "=" harmful characters before the "?".  If so, we
should remove them from the excluded list.

I'll research proposals for 4 and 5 per my AI, but if there are any other
questions I didn't capture here, let us know!

Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Youenn Fablet
> Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 5:35 AM
> To: keith chapman
> Cc: www-ws-desc
> Subject: Re: LocationTemplate-1G test
> 
> 
> +1
> If we have a location="?path={value1}&uri={value2}", the intent of the
> specification is that '&' is sent as is in the url.
> Some characters (the non-ascii ones for instance) must of course be
> encoded to form a correct URL.
> Some text may be missing in the specification to describe this precisely.
>     Youenn
> 
> 
> keith chapman wrote:
> > Even option 1 does not speak of encoding the httplocation. It only
> > speaks of encoding instance data. This raises the issue, should the
> > location template itself be encoded?
> >
> > If we say the location template itself will be encoded then the user
> > wont hav an option of sending unencoded stuff in the url (unless
> > through templating). But if we send it raw as it is then the user can
> > do anything he wants.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Keith.
> >
> > On 2/22/07, *Jean-Jacques Moreau* <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr
> > <mailto:jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>> wrote:
> >
> >     Comments inline.
> >
> >     keith chapman wrote:
> >     > See comments inline
> >     >
> >     > On 2/22/07, *Jonathan Marsh* < jonathan@wso2.com
> >     <mailto:jonathan@wso2.com>
> >     > <mailto:jonathan@wso2.com <mailto:jonathan@wso2.com>>> wrote:
> >     >
> >     >     I thought so too a couple of days ago, but then I found this
> in
> >     >     6.8.1.1 <http://6.8.1.1> <http://6.8.1.1>:
> >     >
> >     >         * Percent-encoding MUST be performed using the UTF-8
> >     >           representation of the character as prescribed by
> >     section 6.4
> >     >           of [/ IETF RFC 3987
> >     >
> >     <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-
> adjuncts.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#RFC3987%23RFC3987
> >     <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-
> adjuncts.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-
> 8#RFC3987%23RFC3987>>/].
> >     >
> >     > My understanding of this was that it specifies  the encoding
> >     mechanism
> >     > to be used, when encoding is performed.  I think wat it says is
> that
> >     > instance data that is encoded should be encoded it in this way. It
> >     > does not say anything about encoding the httplocation itself.
> >     Yes, this is how the spec was meant to be interpreted (and how I
> >     understood the resolution to CR117). However, since the resolution
> is
> >     Jonathan's option 1 [1] in the first place, we should probably do
> >     as he
> >     suggests.
> >
> >     Jonathan, shall I go make this more explicit in the spec?
> >
> >     JJ.
> >
> >     [1]
> >     http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2007Feb/0039.html
> >     <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2007Feb/0039.html>
> >     >
> >     >     Section 6.4 is where I got the list of characters to be
> >     encoded in
> >     >     my earlier mail.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >     I actually do think we should be encoding characters in the
> >     >     template before we stick it in a message that takes a URI
> >     (if the
> >     >     message were to take an IRI that would be different, but AIUI
> a
> >     >     URI goes in the message in SOAP/HTTP).
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >     **Jonathan Marsh** - http://www.wso2.com <http://www.wso2.com>
> -
> >     >     http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     --------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> >     >
> >     >     *From:* keith chapman [mailto:keithgchapman@gmail.com
> >     <mailto:keithgchapman@gmail.com>
> >     >     <mailto:keithgchapman@gmail.com
> >     <mailto:keithgchapman@gmail.com>>]
> >     >     *Sent:* Wednesday, February 21, 2007 9:03 PM
> >     >     *To:* Jonathan Marsh
> >     >     *Cc:* Youenn Fablet; www-ws-desc
> >     >
> >     >     *Subject:* Re: LocationTemplate-1G test
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >     Hi Jonathan and all,
> >     >
> >     >     Section 6.8.1.1 <http://6.8.1.1> <http://6.8.1.1> [1] in
> >     adjuncts does not speak of
> >     >     encoding characters from the httpLocation it self. As I
> >     understood
> >     >     encoding is performed ONLY on the instance data which replaces
> >     >     templates. In that case I dont think that {{4(^$@!}}4^@*}}
> [2]
> >     >     should be encoded. Afterall its the arthor of the web
> >     services who
> >     >     sticks in the httpLocation. May be he wanted to send those
> >     >     characters as it is in the URL. He should be aware of it. I
> dont
> >     >     think that we should be encoding the characters in the
> template.
> >     >
> >     >     Should we make this clear in the spec or have
> >     I  misunderstood it?
> >     >
> >     >     [1]
> >     >
> >     http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-
> adjuncts.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-
> 8#_http_operation_location_cited_ser
> >     <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-
> adjuncts.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-
> 8#_http_operation_location_cited_ser>
> >     >
> >     <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-
> adjuncts.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-
> 8#_http_operation_location_cited_ser
> >     <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-
> adjuncts.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-
> 8#_http_operation_location_cited_ser>>
> >     >
> >     >     [2] datespace/{year}.html?passphrase={time}{{4(^$@!}}4^@*}}
> >     >
> >     >     Thanks,
> >     >     Keith.
> >     >
> >     >     On 2/21/07, *Jonathan Marsh* < jonathan@wso2.com
> >     <mailto:jonathan@wso2.com>
> >     >     <mailto:jonathan@wso2.com <mailto:jonathan@wso2.com>>> wrote:
> >     >
> >     >     I looked into message 13 there.  The location template in that
> >     >     testcase is:
> >     >
> >     >        datespace/{year}.html?passphrase={time}{{4(^$@!}}4^@*}}
> >     >
> >     >     This testcase test not only that templates are encoded, but
> that
> >     >     the IRI is
> >     >     correctly converted to a URI per RFC3987.  Many characters
> over
> >     >     #xA0 are
> >     >     %-encoded, as well as "<", ">", '"', space, "{", "}", "|",
> "\",
> >     >     "^", and
> >     >     "`".
> >     >
> >     >
> datespace/2006.html?passphrase=16:40:00%7B4(%5E$@!%7D4%5E@*%7D
> >     >
> >     >     Indeed the "*" should have been omitted from the list of
> >     >     characters encoded
> >     >     during this conversion.  I've updated the expected results,
> >     >     putting Canon at
> >     >     all green on this testcase.  Axis2 still fails the testcase
> >     because it
> >     >     doesn't seem to be doing the encoding listed above at all.
> >     >
> >     >     Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com -
> >     >     http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >     > -----Original Message-----
> >     >     > From: Youenn Fablet [mailto: youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr
> >     <mailto:youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>
> >     >     <mailto:youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr
> >     <mailto:youenn.fablet@crf.canon.fr>>]
> >     >     > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 5:31 AM
> >     >     > To: keith chapman
> >     >     > Cc: www-ws-desc; Jonathan Marsh
> >     >     > Subject: Re: LocationTemplate-1G test
> >     >     >
> >     >     > Here is canon location template 1G result.
> >     >     > There is one red (request 13).
> >     >     > It seems that our implementation is not %-encoding the '*'
> >     character
> >     >     > while the test framework wants it to be %-encoded.
> >     >     > As per the current draft, '*' is not in the
> >     must-be-encoded set.
> >     >     > An application may therefore typically choose to %-encode
> >     it or not,
> >     >     > right?
> >     >     > The test framework should only check that must-be-%-encoded
> >     >     characters
> >     >     > are correctly encoded and nothing more.
> >     >     > I do not know whether this is easily feasible in the
> >     current test
> >     >     > framework though.
> >     >     >     Youenn
> >     >     >
> >     >     > keith chapman wrote:
> >     >     > >
> >     >     > > Hi Jonathan,
> >     >     > >
> >     >     > > Request 11 shows red due to a mistake in the test
> >     framework. You
> >     >     > > forgot to add 000Z to one time element...
> >     >     > >
> >     >     > > Thanks,
> >     >     > > Keith.
> >     >     > > --
> >     >     > > Keith Chapman
> >     >     > > WSO2 Inc.
> >     >     > > Oxygen for Web Services Developers.
> >     >     > > http://wso2.org/
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >     --
> >     >     Keith Chapman
> >     >     WSO2 Inc.
> >     >     Oxygen for Web Services Developers.
> >     >     http://wso2.org/ <http://wso2.org/>
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > --
> >     > Keith Chapman
> >     > WSO2 Inc.
> >     > Oxygen for Web Services Developers.
> >     > http://wso2.org/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Keith Chapman
> > WSO2 Inc.
> > Oxygen for Web Services Developers.
> > http://wso2.org/
Received on Thursday, 22 February 2007 22:00:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:46 GMT