W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2001

RE: [soapbuilders] question re: namespace hierarchies

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 13:49:58 -0700
To: <dick@8760.com>, <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D0297CB53@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

>Actually, I think consistent use of the ebXML moniker will 
>help with interoperability. The use of "shared, consistent 
>knowledge" is a common practice that has proven successful, 
>for example:
>- TCP/IP port 25 is associated with the SMTP protocol across domains
>- TCP/IP port 80 is associated with the HTTP protocol across domains

Right, but that requires that these "shortnames" are centrally
registered which is the case for TCP port numbers:

	http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/port-numbers

Maintaining such a registry for a scarce resource (there are only so
many port numbers) makes sense but this is not the case for arbitrary
names like "ebxml". This is the reason why we use URIs for SOAPAction in
the first place - to avoid a central registry.

>If the relative "ebXML" moniker has consistent meaning at each 
>URL, kind of like index.html, then this would be a good thing, IMO.

There is no guarantee what so ever about what the name "index.html"
might mean - not even that it is an HTML document. It is a fundamental
concept of URI architecture that there is no such binding:

	http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Axioms.html

I would suggest that you pick an absolute URI for the value of
SOAPAction header field.

Henrik
Received on Sunday, 22 April 2001 16:50:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:00 GMT