- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 10:15:04 +0100
- To: frystyk@microsoft.com
- CC: "'Williams Stuart'" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@akamai.com>, "'Mark Jones'" <jones@research.att.com>, "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:
> [In SOAP]
> Handlers as such do not have names as they are always associated with a
> processor. However, modules have names which is the XML NS URI of that
> module. How a processor finds a handler is an implementation choice but
> it could for example be based on the XML NS URI of the module.
>
> When we look at the XML NS URIs and the actor URIs we in fact have two
> names in a SOAP message:
>
> * The actor URI identifies the "name" of the receiving SOAP processor
> * The XML NS URI identifies the "type" of the block.
>
> [...]
Henrik, I had always been thinking of namespaces as a way to avoid
XML-tagname clashes, no more. You are suggesting that XMLP also uses
namespaces to "name" ("type"?) modules, which I would have done instead
through an additional attribute. From your knowledge, it this particular use
of namespaces suggested by the XML Namespace spec? is it common practice?
Jean-Jacques.
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2001 04:16:08 UTC