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

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

From: Paul Cotton <pcotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:59:25 -0400
Message-ID: <E7AC4500EAB7A442ABA7521D1881439701470F55@tor-msg-01.northamerica.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "christopher ferris" <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
Cc: "W3C XML Protocol IG (E-mail)" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
When the XML Base specification was completed, it was clearly stated
that it did NOT create a normative affect on other specifications.  But
in affect that other specifications had to state explicitly that they
supported XML Base.  Note the following text from [1]:

"The behavior of xml:base attributes in applications based on
specifications that do not have direct or indirect normative reference
to XML Base is undefined."

/paulc

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/

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: Thursday, August 16, 2001 1:10 PM
> To: Paul Cotton
> Cc: W3C XML Protocol IG (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: Issue 30: Action item 2001/06/20
> 
> 
> 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 15:00:04 GMT

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