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

RE: issue 168 proposal: xsi:type of external references in Encoding

From: Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 12:00:27 -0800
Message-ID: <C3729BBB6099B344834634EC67DE4AE102623C34@red-msg-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Noah Mendelsohn" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, "Jacek Kopecky <jacek" <jacek@systinet.com>
Cc: "xml-dist-app" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Can we make such normative statements universally about URI reference
processing or should processing depend on the semantics of the message?
I think the latter.

-----Original Message-----
From: Noah Mendelsohn [mailto:noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 10:06 AM
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek
Cc: xml-dist-app
Subject: Re: issue 168 proposal: xsi:type of external references in

As I've suggested before, I think there are issues relating to external
references that go beyond the encodings, and I think our approach has to
consistent across the cases.  If I send you a document that uses
and has an href to some other URL, what are my obligations in following
that link?  It has very bad performance and security implications if you
even imply that a conforming implementation MUST try to open a random
that happens to show up in the href of a document.

This also relates to our handling of SOAP+Attachments and DIME, which I
think we've delayed for now.

So, we need to indicate in the encodings, what is the result if there is
href you choose not to follow or can't follow?  Is it that a fault
be generated?  Is it the same fault as if an href in the form of a
referencing the envelope itself fails?  Thanks.

Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Monday, 10 December 2001 15:01:24 UTC

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