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

Proposed text for XMLBase

From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 18:02:16 -0400
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFE4329696.05469B82-ON85256AB7.006FBFC6@lotus.com>
On the telephone call this afternoon, I took a "to do" to propose text for
the use of XMLBase with SOAP.  In researching the XMLBase spec [1], the
issue turned out to be a bit more subtle than I had realized:  I believe
there are three potential questions: (a) do we allow and interpret per [1]
the xml:base attribute?;  (b) in the absence of an xml:base attribute, what
do we say about the "base URI" for our document or entity as used in [2]?;
(c) can that base URI be determined or overriden by bindings or additional
specifications, such as SOAP+Attachments [3]?  I think the sense of the
call was "disallow (a), don't define (b), let other specs such as
SOAP+Attachments do (c) ", so that's what I've tried to write.

I presume the editors would clean this up and integrate it stylistically
with the rest of the document:


BASE URI's and Relative URI Resolution

"This version of the SOAP specification does not support the W3C XML Base
Recommendation.  The xml:base attribute SHOULD NOT appear on the
SOAP-ENV:Envelope, SOAP-ENV:Body, SOAP-ENV:Header, or SOAP-ENV:Fault
elements;  processors receiving messages with such xml:base attributes
SHOULD generate a XXXXXX fault (details TBD).

This specification provides no standard Base URI for the contents of the
SOAP-ENV:Body or other header entries;  specifications for particular
applications of SOAP, as well as specifications for transport bindings,
header entries and/or body entries MAY define the interpretation of
relative URI's within such body or entries. In the absence of such
additional specifications, the resolution of relative URI's appearing
within the contents of a body or other header entry is undefined.

Relative URI's SHOULD NOT be used as  values for attributes or elements
(such as SOAP-ENV:Actor, SOAP-ENV:EncodingStyle) defined by this
specification;  if such values are used, their resolution to absolute URI's
is not defined by this specification.

Namespace declarations for the namespaces used in this specification (such
as http://www.w3.org/2001/06/soap-envelope) MUST be provided as absolute
URI's.   Element or attribute names qualified with relative URI namespaces
are not recognized as matching the absolute names mandated by this


Does this capture the sense of the group?  I'll leave it to the editors to
get out the SOAP-ENV stuff, which doesn't seem to be used in the rest of
the spec.

Sorry it turned out so clunky, but I think there are quite a few edge cases
to consider.  I wonder whether there will be any pushback for not more
aggressively supporting a published W3C recommendation?  Otherwise, I agree
with Paul that this is a reasonable compromise for 1.2.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlbase/#rfc2396
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP-attachments#SOAPReferenceToAttachements

Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2001 18:09:47 GMT

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