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

Re: Proposed text for XMLBase

From: christopher ferris <chris.ferris@east.sun.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 10:56:30 -0400
Message-ID: <3B8E541E.E3E65F6D@east.Sun.COM>
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: "'Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com'" <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Stuart,

Thanks for the comprehensive investigative reporting;-)

Please see my further comments below.

Cheers,

Chris

"Williams, Stuart" wrote:
> 
> Hi Noah,
> 
> I've just taken a look at the text of XML Base [1]. The last paragraph of
> the Introduction [2] states:
> 
> "The deployment of XML Base is through normative reference by new
> specifications, for example XLink and the XML Infoset. Applications and
> specifications built upon these new technologies will natively support XML
> Base. 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."
> 
> Section 3 "Relation to XML" of the current SOAP 1.2 part 1 editors draft [3]
> (and earlier variants back to the current WD) it states:
> 
> "SOAP uses unqualified attribute information items with a local name of id
> and a type of ID in the http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema namespace to
> specify the unique identifier of an encoded element. SOAP uses unqualified
> attribute information items with a local name of href and a type of anyURI
> in the http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema namespace to specify a reference to
> such a value, in a manner conforming to the XML Specification[11], XML
> Schema Specification[8], and XML Linking Language Specification[12]."
> 
> Which results in normative references to XLink [4] and XML Schema Part 2 [5]
> which itself normatively references XLink under its description of the
> anyURI datatype [6].

And from the Xlink[4] spec under section 5.4 Locator Attribute (href) which
is normatively referenced from the anyURI datatype description in the XML Schema
Specification[8] it says:

	"If the URI reference is relative, its absolute version must be computed 
								^^^^
	by the method of [XML Base] before use."

Following the logic you've outlined above, it seems that at as you
point out, at the very least indirectly, XML Base[1] applies to relative URI 
values in the SOAP 1.2 specification.

> 
> Thus I believe that we are already in a situation when we at least have
> indirect normative references to XML Base [1] and that its is implicit
> already that the semantics of XML base be observed when dereferencing an
> "...unqualified attribute item with a local name of href and a type of
> anyURI...".
> 
> > "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).
> >
> 
> Not sure... this doesn't outlaw xml:base within the things contained within
> Envelope, Header, Body and Fault it does prevent an xml:base appearing high
> up in the hierachy even if the relative URIs that use it could be much
> further down the tree.
> 
> Seems to me that the problem is not so much the presense of xml:base at the
> top level, but the presense of relative URIs in these high-level elements.
> Not sure quite how to capture that. It seems to me that in the absense of
> relative URI refs the presense of an xml:base is moot. In the presence of
> href's deeper in a SOAP message, our current drafts commit us (implicitly)
> to honoring any in-scope xml:base attribute - and it shouldn't matter that
> it arise on one of the higher level elements. If xml:base handling needs to
> go in for href handling, then you've probably done the lion's share of the
> work.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Agree... although I guess I would prefer consistent treatment of anything
> that carries a URI.

Moi ausi!

> 
> > 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
> > specification.
> 
> Again, I'd agree that the use of absolute URIs should be encouraged in these
> cases. I think I would be inclined to be 'forgiving' of relative URIs in the
> presense of an appropriate xml:base attribute.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Stuart
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlbase-20010627/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlbase-20010627/#introduction
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/08/29/soap12-part1.html#reltoxml
> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xlink-20010627/
> [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/
> [6] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#anyURI
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com [mailto:Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com]
> > Sent: 29 August 2001 23:02
> > To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> > Subject: Proposed text for XMLBase
> >
> >
> > 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
> > specification."
> >
> > ======================================================
> >
> > 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 Thursday, 30 August 2001 10:56:43 GMT

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