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 19:42:07 -0400
Message-ID: <E7AC4500EAB7A442ABA7521D1881439701471014@tor-msg-01.northamerica.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "David Orchard" <orchard@pacificspirit.com>, "christopher ferris" <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
Cc: "W3C XML Protocol IG (E-mail)" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> 2) the SOAP infoset is not Infoset conformant because it is unclear
whether XML Base decls can 
set the base uri property.

I do not agree with this assertion.  There are no conformance clauses in
the Infoset spec.  It simply gives other spec writers definitions and
terms to use.  In fact the CR period for the Infoset was tested by
simply showing that other specs used some of the terms in the Infoset
spec.  

If SOAP 1.2 says nothing about the properties defined for XML Base then
this is fine.  It is our decision.

So I vote for 1) for SOAP 1.2 and for 2) after SOAP 1.2.

/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: David Orchard [mailto:orchard@pacificspirit.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 2:03 PM
> To: 'christopher ferris'; Paul Cotton
> Cc: W3C XML Protocol IG (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Issue 30: Action item 2001/06/20
> 
> 
> 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 19:43:54 GMT

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