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

Re: Issue 30: Action item 2001/06/20

From: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:44:49 -0400
Message-ID: <3B7C14A1.F8DCD5BB@east.Sun.COM>
To: David Orchard <orchard@pacificspirit.com>
CC: Paul Cotton <pcotton@microsoft.com>, "W3C XML Protocol IG (E-mail)" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
+1 to #2

David Orchard wrote:
> 
> Seems like a new issue, and possibly a co-ordination group issue to me.  I
> suggest something like:
> 
> Issue: SOAP treatment of XML Base.  What, if anything, should a SOAP
> processor do with an XML Base declaration if it appears in a SOAP Message.
>  Options:
> 1) Do nothing
> 2) SOAP 1.2 processors must conform to XML Base
> 3) Undefined, treatment of XML Base in SOAP 1.2 is optional
> 4) Ask XML CG for a resolution
> 5) Wait until W3C decides on how to deal with the results of the XML
> Processing Model workshop, potentially another WG may define an overall
> processing model
> 6) Wait for the TAG to define.
> 7) Form XMLP/XML
> 
> I note that SOAP 1.1 Note was published May 8 2000, XML Base hit
> Recommendation on June 27 2001, and on May 8 2000 XML Base was in WD
> status.  SOAP 1.1 did fine without XML Base as XML Base wasn't even at CR
> at the time.  But things have changed, and now XML Base is usable by
> vocabularies such as SOAP.
> 
> I also observe that the Infoset supports an Base URI property.  Indeed, the
> infoset spec says the Base URI "is computed according to [XML Base]"  An
> Infoset based draft of SOAP that says nothing about XML Base seems like it
> means either 1) XML Base is supported implicitly because the xml base
> infoset property can be set by XML Base (option #2) or 2) the SOAP infoset
> is not Infoset conformant because it is unclear whether XML Base decls can
> set the base uri property.
> 
> My personal thought is that SOAP needs to say something about XML Base.  I
> lean towards option #2, and I'm very interested in feedback on the overlap.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave
> 
> On Thursday, August 16, 2001 10:10 AM, christopher ferris
> [SMTP:chris.ferris@east.sun.com] wrote:
> > If SOAP is expressed as an XML syntax, then how can it
> > be ignored? Are we saying that XMLBase cannot be used in
> > the context of a SOAP message?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Chris
> > Paul Cotton wrote:
> > >
> > > We only have to deal with XML Base if we think SOAP 1.2 should support
> > > it.  Personally, I do not think this is mandatory for SOAP 1.2
> > > especially since SOAP 1.1 did fine without refering to XML Base.
> > >
> > > I suggest you open a new issue about XML Base support if you think its
> > > support is mandatory.  It is really orthogonal to Issue 30.
> > >
> > > /paulc
> > >
> > > Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> > > 17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3
> > > Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329
> > > <mailto:pcotton@microsoft.com>
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: christopher ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@east.sun.com]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 3:28 PM
> > > > To: Paul Cotton
> > > > Cc: W3C XML Protocol IG (E-mail)
> > > > Subject: Re: Issue 30: Action item 2001/06/20
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Paul,
> > > >
> > > > Just a nit.
> > > >
> > > > The href attribute should be of type "anyURI" as defined in
> > > > XML schema datatypes.
> > > >
> > > > It seems to me that we need to address any implications of XML Base
> > > > on the value of the href attribute if it isn't expressed as an
> > > > absolute URI.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > > Paul Cotton wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Action item 2001/06/20 asked me to clarify Issue 30 [1].  This
> issue
> > > > > originated in my email [2] that outlined how SOAP 1.1 meet the XML
> > > > > Protocol R4xxx Requirements:
> > > > >
> > > > > "R403
> > > > > ----
> > > > > Requirement: Data serialized according to the XML Protocol data
> > > > > representation may contain references to data outside the
> > > > serialization.
> > > > > These references must be Uniform
> > > > > Resource Identifiers (URIs).
> > > > >
> > > > > Comment: The SOAP/1.1 encoding uses the "id" and "href"
> > > > attributes to
> > > > > name
> > > > > and refer to resources or sub-parts of resources. The
> > > > format of the href
> > > > > attribute is of type "uri-reference" as defined by XML
> > > > schema. The "id"
> > > > > attribute is of type "ID" as defined by XML/1.0. There are no
> > > > > restrictions
> > > > > on the value of a URI used as value in a href attribute.
> > > > >
> > > > > Judgement: SOAP/1.1 covers this requirement although it is not
> > > > > explicitly
> > > > > stated that URIs can in fact point to anything."
> > > > >
> > > > > Issue 30 Clarification:
> > > > > In my opinion, the only point that we want to clarify (and
> > > > it is only a
> > > > > clarification) is that a consequence of using URIs is that they can
> > > > > point to anything and not only within the same document (of
> > > > the style
> > > > > #foo). Some implementers may be surprised that the value of the
> href
> > > > > attribute could be something like
> > > > "http://www.foo.com/some.doc" if we do
> > > > > not point this out in a clarification. In addition we might want to
> > > > > indicate that they can point to an attachment to the SOAP
> > > > message [3].
> > > > > In both of the latter cases we want to be sure to indicate
> > > > that these
> > > > > URI's point outside of the current SOAP message.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues#x30
> > > > > [2]
> > > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Feb/0045.html
> > > > > [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP-attachments
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> > > > > 17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3
> > > > > Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329
> > > > > <mailto:pcotton@microsoft.com>
> > > >
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2001 14:44:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:03 GMT