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

Re: Proposed positive text for XML Base

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 12:12:41 -0400
To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>
Cc: "David Orchard" <david.orchard@bea.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF3BB53DA3.569DA140-ON85256ADF.005920BB@raleigh.ibm.com >
I like that wording much better.
-Dug

"Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com> on 10/08/2001 09:00:38 AM

To:   "David Orchard" <david.orchard@bea.com>, Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Subject:  Re: Proposed positive text for XML Base



I suspect that David is trying to allow for the case where a header or body
element wishes to disallow xml:base.

I would reword the first paragraphs as follows ( from an Infoset
perspective );

This version of the SOAP specification supports the W3C XML Base
Recommendation. An xml:base attribute information item MAY appear on any of
the element information items defined in this specification.

Regards

Gudge

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Davis" <dug@us.ibm.com>
To: "David Orchard" <david.orchard@bea.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2001 7:57 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed positive text for XML Base


> David,
>   In the 1st paragraph you have:
> "This version of the SOAP specification supports the W3C XML Base
> Recommendation. The xml:base attribute MAY appear on the
> SOAP-ENV:Envelope, SOAP-ENV:Body, SOAP-ENV:Header, or
> SOAP-ENV:Fault elements.
>
> I'm reading the intent of this as XMLBase can be used anywhere.
> If so, why do we need to call out those XML element directly,
> why can't just we just stop after the 1st sentence.  Having
> the 2nd one could lead people to believe that those are the only
> elements that xml:base can appear in the entire XML document.
>
> -Dug
>
> David Orchard <david.orchard@bea.com>@w3.org on 10/05/2001 08:16:42 PM
>
> Sent by:  xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
>
>
> To:   xml-dist-app@w3.org
> cc:
> Subject:  Proposed positive text for XML Base
>
>
>
> I took Noah's excellent wording[1] and semantically NOTed it. My attempt
> follows. Please note that this wording defines that relative URI's ARE
> interpreted according to xml:base, therefore implementations must support
> xml:base. It seems to me that an application that doesn't support
xml:base
> but supports relative URIs is an undefined state.
>
> BASE URI's and Relative URI Resolution
> --------------------------------------
> "This version of the SOAP specification supports the W3C XML Base
> Recommendation. The xml:base attribute MAY appear on the
SOAP-ENV:Envelope,
> SOAP-ENV:Body, SOAP-ENV:Header, or SOAP-ENV:Fault elements.
>
> The XML Base specification provides a 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 additionally. 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 defined by XML
Base.
>
> Relative URI's MAY 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 defined
> according to the XML Base Recommendation.
>
> 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."
>
> Cheers,
> Dave Orchard
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Aug/0268.html
>
>
Received on Monday, 8 October 2001 12:13:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:04 GMT