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

RE: Possible new issue on interpretation of relative URI actors

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 07:54:24 -0800
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D05A83EBD@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Please have a look at the proposed text for handling xml base which
already discusses the question of how to establish a base URI for a
message and how to deal with URIs in general. Given that we already have
an issue for xml base I am wondering whether we need another issue.

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Dec/0005.html

>In private discussion, Henrik and I tripped over the question of a 
>relative URI used as an actor.  If a block has:
>        Actor="#A"
>        Actor="A"
>and if a node decides to act in that role, is there 
>necessarily some other 
>absolute URI in which role it needs to act?  I had assumed "no", but I 
>think Henrik had assumed "yes", and he further believes that 
>no changes to 
>the SOAP spec are needed, as this is implicit in the web and URI 
>architecture and the definition of a relative URI.
>I would prefer to at least be a bit clearer in the spec, say a 
>bit more 
>about what the base URI for a message might be, etc.  
>Presumably the base 
>URI must be stable through message processing, so if you no 
>how to make #A 
>absolute, then #B must follow from that and be handled consistently?
>All of this bears some relation to the dreaded Namespace issue 
>(is it a 
>string or a real URI) but at least in this case nobody is proposing to 
>actually retrieve a resource in most cases. 
>Anyway, I recommend we open an issue.  Thanks.
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2001 10:54:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:17 UTC