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

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

From: David Orchard <orchard@pacificspirit.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 06:49:25 -0700
Message-ID: <01C126E8.C163DCE0.orchard@pacificspirit.com>
To: "'Jacek Kopecky'" <jacek@idoox.com>
Cc: Paul Cotton <pcotton@microsoft.com>, "W3C XML Protocol IG (E-mail)" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Interesting perspective.  As XML Schema Datatypes doesn't use XML Base, 
that would imply that SOAP 1.2 shouldn't use XML Base.  I guess another 
option is

1)b) Do nothing and wait for XML Schema to support XML Base, and then 
decide when or if SOAP X.Y should support an XML Baseified XML Schema

Dave

ps. All this discussion on XML Base reminds me of the "all your base are 
belong to us" lines.


On Friday, August 17, 2001 5:42 AM, Jacek Kopecky [SMTP:jacek@idoox.com] 
wrote:
> It seems that this issue might be affected by the non-normative
> XML Base's section on impact on other standards [1]. It says:
>
> "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes [XML Datatypes] defines a
> uriReference primitive datatype. The XML Datatypes specification
> might want to require that applications recognizing this datatype
> and resolving such URIs be aware of XML Base."
>
> Since we use XML Schema, we should depend on XML Schema's
> decision on this subject, right? 8-)
>
>                             Jacek Kopecky
>
>                             Idoox
>                             http://www.idoox.com/
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/#impacts
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, 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 Friday, 17 August 2001 09:38:09 GMT

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